Journal oJ Nannoplankton

Research

A PubUcadon of the International Nannoplankton Association

JOURNAL OF NANNOPLANKTON RESEARCH
Published by the International Nannoplankton Association
Number 1

Volume18

March 1996

NEWS AND GOSSIP CompiledbyJackie Burnettetal. .... .... .. ...... ........ .... .. ...................... ..... .... ......... ..... ... .. ...... .. 4
LE'TIERFROM11IE NEWEDI1DR ..... .... ....... ... ,... .....·.. ................... ..... ........... ... .. .... .. .. .... ..... .... .. ............... . 4
NEWPhi>s.... ...... ... .. ...... ....... .. ..................... .. ... .... .... ... ... ...... ... .. ....... ... ... ... ........................ .. ....... ... ... ..... ..... . 4
FORTIIOOMING EVENTS ........ .. ...................... ....... ...... .. .... .. ...... ........ .......... .. ...... ..... .. ............ .... ........ ....... . 4
Summer 1996 Fie1dtrip ..... ...................... .... ... ... ..... ... .. ... ...... ............. ...... ... .... .... .... ........ .......... .......... ...... 4
BOOKS AND REVIEWS .......... ... .... ..... ....... ... .... .. .... .......... ....... ... .... ....................... ... ....... .. ... ..... ............ ..... 4
W. Greuter et al. (Eds). International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code)
Reviewed by Shirley E. van Heck ..... ..... ..... ..... ........ ... .... .. .. .... ... ...... ... .. ... .... ..... ......... ... .... .... ................ .. 4
6TIIINA OONFERENCE, COPENHAGEN, 2-7 SEPTEMBER 1995 .... ..... .................................. ...... .... ...... ................. 5
2ND INIERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CRETACEOUS STAGE BOUNDARIES, BRUSSELS,
8-16SEPTEMBER1995 .... ........... .. ......... ..... ... ..... .. ........ .. ... ........... ... .... .. ..... .. .... .............. ...... ... .. ... ............. ... ... ..... 10
THE ICBN: TIIINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW- 13 Shirley E. van Heck .... .. ............ ... ... .. ................... .. .......... ... 12

NEW BOOKS .. .... ... ............. .. ............... ... ..... .......... .. ............... ......... .. ....... ................. ......................... ... ............. 14
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ON MOUNTING MEDIA

Shirley E. van Heck .................... .. ..... .. ... .... ........... ... ..... 15

OBTAINING RICHNANNOFOSSILASSEMBLAGES FROM 'BARREN' SAMPLES: PROCESSINGORGANIC-RICH ROCKS INNANNOFOSSIL INVESTIGATIONS YoramEshet ...... ... ..... ... .. ....... .... ... .... ....... ... 17
NANNOFOSSILSAND UPPER CREfACEOUS (SUB-)STAGE BOUNDARIES- STAlE OF THE ART
Jackie A. Burnett .. ... ............. .. ......... .. ... ....... ..... .... ... .. ........ .. .... .. ..... .... .... ...... ....... ..... .... ....... ... ...... .. .... ..... ...... ...... 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND TAXA OF CALCAREOUS NANNOPLANKTON- 26
INA MEMBERSHIP CHANGESWilliam G. Siesser ...... ... ........ ..... 33

Kevin Cooper .............. .. ....... .... .. ..... ...... ........ ........ ........... ..... ... .. ... ... .... ... ... ... 36

INAACCOUNTS, APRIL 1994-MARCH 1995

NickyHine, StephanRoot ..... ... ...... .... .. ..................................... 37================3===============================

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

News and gossip, p. 4 - 5.

NEWS AND GOSSIP
Compiled by Jackie Burnett on behalf of the INA Committee
FORTHCOMING EVENTSLETTER FROM THE NEW EDITOR
Despite Jeremy's hope for a smooth transition between
editors, a number of glitches occurred which caused thedelay of this issue of the Journal, which should have appeared by December. For these, I apologise, since they
were entirely my fault, however the transfer occurred at atime when I was experiencing an unusually heavy workload, combined with moving house, and planning andimplementing a transfer to Arizona for a few months. It
is from this haven (Northern Arizona University) that I
eventually managed to pull this issue together! I'm sorry
to keep you all waiting.
I am sure we all would like to extend our thanks toJeremy for his hard work and dedication to editing the
Journal over the past few years. However, he isn't leaving the job entirely - he will remain as a Deputy Editor,
alongside Paul Bown. I hope Marine Micropaleontology
appreciates his skills as much as we have. Thank you
Jeremy! Strangely, enough, Jeremy has also just taken up
a position which became vacant when I retired as Chairman, that of British Micropalaeontological Society
Nannofossil Group Secretary ... the nannoplankton world
seems to be a small one, in more than one sense!
Taking on a job such as this one started me wondering about improvements or innovations that mightenhance the Journal. However, Jeremy and Bohurnil havedone such a professional job on the editing and production that I feel loathe to alter anything. What I would liketo do, though, is to remind you that this Journal is your
Journal. It relies on your articles, your letters, your snippets of information. Its reputation is largely dependent
upon the standard of the articles you submit for publication. It exists in order to inform fellow nannoplankton
specialists ofyour research. This includes publicising yoursuccessful attainment of PhD status, or the start of yourPhD research project, as well as the results of these andpost-doctoral labours. If you're a research co-ordinator
who has funding for a project, why not advertise this? If
you have a project in mind, and think you can get funding for international collaboration, or for a foreign research assistant, why not advertise this? As palaeontologists, we are finding ourselves being undervalued andSummer 1996 Fieldtrip
The Nannofossil Group of the British Micropalaeontological Society are contemplating organising a weekend
fieldtrip to the Boulonnais area of northern France during
the summer. This area is within easy reach of many othernanno workers and we would be very happy to have you
join us. If you are interested in being kept informed of ourplans, please contact one of us.
Dawn Windley , Chairman (edpdeaw@bath.ac. uk),
Jeremy Young, Secretary (jy@fthm.ac.uk)
BOOKS & REVIEWSInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(Tokyo Code)
Edited by W. Greuter et aL (1994)
Koeltz Scientific Books: 389pp.
ISBN 387429367X 1878762664 8090169910
Reviewed by Shirley E. van Heck, Sarawak Shell
Berhad, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia
Compared to the previous (1988) version of the Botanical Code, also known as the Berlin Code, a major re-hashhas taken place. Several articles have been deleted andothers placed in a more logical sequence, such as articles
7-10. New articles have been added and quite a few articles have been split up. This has led to the renumberingof a lot of articles. Fortunate1y, a tabular key is provided
in the front, listing old and new article numbers. This
key alone takes up a whole page and is too long to reproduce here. Many of the articles have been revised or rephrased. On the whole, this is an improvement, although
in a few cases (such asArt.7.5), I found the new phrasing
more ambiguous than the previous. The general philosophy of the Code is more than ever aimed at achieving
stability in nomenclature.
The preface suggests that extra effort has been
made in the editing, although this is not noticeable, withthe first errors occurring in the key that lists the differences between the Berlin Code and the Tokyo Code, andin references to other articles. To name a few examples:
Art.6.4 refers to Art.19.5 instead of 19.6; in Art.6.8, thereference to Art.l9.5 is omitted. More disturbing still isthat whole lines are missing, such as the first two lines ofArt. l9.5!
Another issue addressed in the preface is the useof italics. I have always been under the impression thatthe rule was for names below the rank of family to beprinted in italics, and names of family and above in normal script. Now I read that the use of italics is not covered in any rules, and that there are several habits around.
In fact, the Code now recommends the writing of all Latinnames in italics.

overlooked in an increasing number of countries (the UK
now seems to be heading the same way as the US). Now,
more than ever, we should be making a more concerted
effort to win funding, carry out more research, and proveto those funding bodies, geological surveys and oil companies how spectacularly useful nannoplankton are!
Jackie Burnett
NEWPhDs
Dawn Windley, 1985. Calcareous nannofossil applications in the study ofcyclic sediments of the Cenomanian.
University College London.

4

News and gossip, p. 4 - 5. 6th INA Conference, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 5 - 9.

In this review, I will highlight only a few of the
major changes made (in contents, not numbering) that
affect us, as nannoplankton specialists, most. A moredetailed account of the changes will be covered in thecolumn "The ICBN: things you need to know- 13" (seeelsewhere in this issue).
One interesting new article is the following:
Art.9.7. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected
to serve as an interpretive type when the holotype,lectotype or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name,is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identifiedfor purposes ofthe precise application ofthe nameofa taxon. When an epitype is designated, the holotype,lectotype or neotype that the epitype supports must be
explicitly cited. This article, therefore, offers the possibility to select a type for some of those species names
which are really only based on a simple drawing that does
not offer enough detail. I am thinking here of some of thespecies of Arkhangelskij and G6rka, for example.
This next one could prove a source for trouble:
the following has been added to Art.32.1: ... In addition,subject to the approval of the XVI International Botanical Congress, names (autonyms excepted) published on

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, l, 1996.

or after 1 January 2000 must be registered. Art.32.2.
Registration is effected by sending the printed matter that
includes the protologue(s), with the name(s) to be registered clearly identified, to any registering office designated by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy. This new idea, although not approved yet, is going to trigger a lot of discussion. If we, as nannoplankton
specialists, want to have any input into the validity ofnannoplankton names, we have to be well-prepared. The
discussion is hereby opened.
Another new, high-impact rule appears inArt.36:
36.3.In order to be validly published, a name ofa taxon offossil plants published on or after ]January 1996
must be accompanied by a Latin or English description
or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively published Latin or English description or diagnosis. Latin is still required for recent plants, but at leastfrom now on any other language is invalid. To be fair,
most taxa have been published in English lately, but it is
now compulsory. The INA hereby officially recommends
English, rather than Latin.
These are the changes with most impact. Because
many, if not most, of the numbers of articles have changed,
you should use this new code if you want to refer to any
rules in taxonomic discussions.

THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL NANNOPLANKTON ASSOCIATIONCONFERENCE, COPENHAGEN, 2ND-7TH SEPTEMBER 1995
Host: Geological Survey ofDenmark. and Greenland (DGGU). Convenor: Dave JUTSONOVERVIEW
Organising an international scientific conference is a majortask at any time, and for Dave Jutson a particularly exciting
challenge since he was repeatedly posted offshore to NorthSea drilling rigs during the run up to the conference. Nonetheless, this was a very smoothly-organised and successful
meeting. Perhaps we had slightly fewer adventures than atsome previous meetings (perhaps the beer was too expensive? Ed.) but all participants agreed that, scientifically, it
was about the best nanno meeting they had attended(comparisons are of course invidious but, after ten years ofbiennial meetings, participants seemed to spend much of
their time swapping stories about previous gatherings, so it
is only fair to reflect this in a report).
There were some 71 registrants at this meeting, coming from 22 countries around the world. A few familiar
faces were missing due to rival attractions, such as the Cretaceous Stage Boundaries meeting in Brussels (see reports
below), although the most dedicated attended both. As inprevious years, there were large contingents from the UK,
Italy and USA but this time easily the best-represented
nation was Germany, with 18 participants! This large contingent appeared to reflect the strength of microfossil research in Germany, and particularly the large calcisphereresearch group, as well as the geographical proximity ofDenmark.

The meeting commenced with an excellent and very
well-attended, one-day fieldtrip to Stevn's Klint and other
Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary sections, led by Hans Jergen
Hansen. This was immediately followed by an ice-breaker
party, which was even better attended.
There followed three days of scientific sessions,
held in the smart, modem buildings of the Danish Geological Survey, which proved an excellent conference
venue. Dave Jutson was assisted in running the conference by a host of colleagues to make us welcome, anticipate needs and help with problems - not least doing their.
best to insulate us from the shock of Danish prices by
including as much as possible in the registration cost.
Particularly appreciated was the very fine Celtic
Chiasmo/ithus logo which featured on souvenir mugs andt-shirts, as well as the conference materials.
At the end, we enjoyed a wonderful end-of-conference dinner in a beautiful pavilion on one of the
moatlakes that surround the centre of Copenhagen. In
addition, of course, we spent marty happy hours in therestaurants and bars of this enchanting, if expensive, city.
The post-conference fieldtrip, sadly, had to be cancelled owing to a shortage of well-funded participants
but several of us stayed in Copenhagen for a few days
more to enjoy the city atmosphere, visit the Little Mermaid, Tivoli Gardens, Hamlet's Castle in Helsinger (aka
Elsinore), and even to do a little geology- with the help,
once again, of Dave Jutson and a DGU car.
.
Jeremy Young

5Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

6th INA Conference, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 5 - 9.

INA BUSINESS MEETING
We had, as usual, an INA business meeting at the conference. There were no major debates here but two important issues were formally decided:

reticulofenestrids. These are now well-established lines ofresearch but the presentations showed that accumulationof knowledge on the detailed stratigraphic record and environmental preferences of the groups, combined with integration of other, high-resolution data, are allowing evermore useful understanding. One result of this is that thetype of high-resolution biostratigraphy established in the
Quaternary is being gradually extended into the Neogene.
Further back, Wuchang Wei used the record of nannofossils
in high-latitude sites to date the initiation of the North
Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). Viviana Reale departed fromthe oceanographic theme, describing variation in
nannofossil assemblages in relation to sequencestratigraphy in Early Eocene deposits from the Pyrenees.
Posters included several more palaeoceanographic andbiostratigraphic studies, and also some taxonomic work - asupetb review of Palaeocene lineages by Eric de Kaenel,and a detailed study of the Coccolithus miopelagicus lineage by Alysa Peleo-Alampay.

Appointment of new editor
Jackie Burnett replaces Jeremy Young. Ric Jordan, the only
other volunteer for the job, has no hard feelings about
Jackie' s appointment!

Decision of venue for the next meeting
Amos Winter was, in the end, the only candidate for hosting the next INA Conference, in Puerto Rico. After somediscussion of arrangements and economics, his proposal
was enthusiastically accepted.
Jeremy YoungSCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONSThere were some 30 oral presentations. This is fewer thanat previous conferences but, paradoxically, it seemed tolead to an improvement in the scientific value of the meeting; each speaker was able to have a 25 minute time-slot,
which contributed to less-hurried presentations and a more
attentive audience. Also, though, the standard of talks was
generally very high. To balance the reduction in numberof talks, there were more posters (about 40) presented at
this meeting than at any previous INA Conference, andthe general standard of posters seemed higher as well. The
following notes are arranged by topic and I apologise forinaccuracies, which are inevitable since I was not very scrupulous about taking notes. I have tried to be comprehensive with the talks but coverage of posters is no more thanrandom.

The Cretaceousffertiary boundary
There were actually only two talks on the K!T boundary,but being in Denmark our sessions were taking place only
a few metres above the boundary and it reappeared frequently in discussions. These very much started on the
pre-conference fieldtrip- a pleasant day's excursion to
Stevn 's Klint and other classic localities led by Hans Jorgen
Hansen from the DGU. Hans carefully introduced us to thecomplex stratigraphy across the boundary, with many new
observations and persuasively-marshalled evidence to support his strongly-held opinions- he is not a member of the
pro-meteorite camp! In particular, he explained that there
was very strong evidence from the palynomorphs of great
ecological fluctuations across the boundary but that thesefluctuations commenced before the boundaiy. He also described how micro-spherule layers are actually formed by
Prasinophyte algae, and presented evidence for volcanic
activity and for the boundary-clay being diachronous.
A possibly similar story seems to be emerging fromthe calcisphere record, as presented by Helmut Willems &illrike Kienel (poster). They showed that, in addition to thewell-known "Thoracosphaera" bloom, there is a complex
ecological signal from calcispheres, including significant
extinctions, but that the ecological excursions appear tostart before the boundary, whilst the main extinctions postdate it.
Jim Pospichal presented his latest work on
nannofossils across the Kff boundary, from Mexican sections near the putative Chicxulub impact site. He also described the extraordinarily passionate, and occasionallydogmatic, nature of the K!T controversy at present. Whilst
carefully remaining neutral as to causes, he showed that
his, extremely detailed, work still suggested a catastrophic
and abrupt extinction.

Recent and Living nannoplankton
Studies of modern nannoplankton appear to be flourishingat the moment, in part at least due to the stimulation of flux
studies, and there were a number of presentations describing large projects looking at the distribution of
coccolithophorids in various combinations of surfacewater, sediment-trap and surface-sediment samples. These
included talks by Lluisa Cros (NW Mediterranean), Harald
Andruleit (N Atlantic), Jacques Giraudeau (Benguela System), and Amos Winter & Ric Jordan (Puerto Rico- a relatively informal presentation, including views of Ric' s newbase in Yamagata at various seasons). In addition, HelgeThomsen gave a beautifully-illustrated description of thepolar coccolithophorids, of special interest to palaeontologists who had never encountered these extraordinary,
weakly-calcified forms. Mario CachAo described the enigmatic distribution of Coccolithus pelagicus off Portugal,
demonstrating once again that temperature alone cannot
explain its biogeography, and suggesting that it might beadapted to a particular combination of tutbulence and nutrient-concentration.

Mesozoic nannofossils
As with the Tertiary, Mesozoic talks concentrated on the

Tertiary and Quaternary nannofossils
Presentations on Cenozoic nannofossils concentrated on
palaeoccanography. Talks on the Pliocene were given byAlex Chepstow-Lusty on discoasters and by Su Xin andKoji Kameo on total assemblages but particularly

theme of palaeoceanography and palaeoecology, but covered a diverse range of topics. Y orarn Eshet introduced aproductivity index for Maastrichtian-Campanian66th INA Conference, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 5 - 9.

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, l, 1996.

nannofossils, and strongly argued that this type of index
was a valuable way of synthesising palaeoecological datafrom the nannofossil record. He also introduced us to anovel technique for nannofossil preparations from organicrich sediments (this article appears elsewhere in this issue).
Andrea Fiorentino reviewed the biogeography ofTethyan
Maastrichtian nannofossils. Jean Self-Trail traced the Late
Cretaceous development of the proto-GulfStream, using
in particular the distributions ofNephro/ithus and Quadrum( Uniplanarius) which appear to be virtually confined tocold- and warm-water, respectively. Jorg Mutterlose described a detailed study of Early Cretaceous nannofossil
palaeoceanography, comparing data from various timescales. Bill Hay and Paul Bown both dealt with Early Cretaceous nannofossil provinciality and the question of whether
the Austral and Boreal Realms had similar nannofloras; Bill
Hay through a general overview with a stimulating discussion ofpalaeoceanography, and Paul Bown through a preliminary description of new studies of nannofloras from the
Neuquen Basin in Argentina. By a happy coincidence, there
were also posters presenting work by an Argentinian groupon the Neuquen Basin, presented by Elena Mostajo. Mari~
Christine Janin gave what was virtually the only Jurassic
talk, describing fluctuations in Ellipsagelosphaeraceae assemblages in the Kimmeridgian in relation to other ecological indicators. This seemed to suggest that, as with the
Tertiary reticulofenestrids, there is great potential for extracting information from the ellipsagelosphaerids.
Talks with a more biostratigraphic emphasis included
Akmal Marwuk on the Egyptian Late Cretaceous and Early
Tertiary, Francesca Lozar on dating and correlation ofomission surfaces, and Fawzy Naji on the nannofossil recordof a proposed Turonian/Coniacian stage-boundary
stratotype section. Stage-boundary stratotype work for theentire Upper Cretaceous was also presented in a poster by
Jackie Burnett (see article elsewhere in this issue).

beta-testing, and it is hoped that it will be available to thegeneral community of nanno workers in 1996. It includes
illustrations and descriptions of>600 taxa, with rapid access to the data via an icon-based taxonomic key.
Jeremy Young described and demonstrated an image-analysis-based biometric system, developed to allow
rapid measurement of size and shape variation in Emi/iania
huxleyi, using light microscopy.
Katharina von Sal is gave an intriguing overview ofcollaborations of calcareous nannofossil workers with art
historians and archaeologists. Although little has been published on this type of detective work, in the discussion
afterwards many examples were described and it seemedthat there was a real potential for more work of this kind, if
the possibilities of nannofossils were better known outside
the geological community.
Bob Young described the use of nannofossil
biostratigraphy in biosteeering horizontal wells in the North
Sea. For this kind of work, it is essential to keep the wellwithin a very narrow lithological horizon. Nannofossils are
ideal, firstly since they can provide very fine resolution,with the aid of slightly unconventional events, and secondly because results can be produced very fast. Liam
Gallagher, who had just finished a stint offshore analysing
10-15 samples per hour for 12-hour shifts, was able to directly confirm this.
Dave Jutson followed this with a rather more sobering North Sea experience - "the case of the missing
nannofossil". He explained how North Sea nannofossil assemblages often deteriorate with alarming rapidity: preparations made immediately on recovery of drilling-mud may
be far richer than those prepared only a matter of hours
later. He suggested that similar sample deterioration may
seriously compromise assemblage analysis in many othercontexts. This provoked some heated discussion, withstrong arguments that it is not a universal problem (theculprit is liable to be a drilling-mud additive) but a clear
implication is that nannofossil workers need to be much
more aware of sample degradation as a factor innannoplankton preservation.

Calcispheres
There were three talks and half a dozen posters dealing
with calcispheres, which is probably some kind of record
for any meeting, at least outside Germany. The presentations included a more or less continuous coverage from theliving to the Early Cretaceous, and a similar breadth of
topics reflecting the development of study of this group,from the initial descriptive phase toward ecological,

Jeremy Young
COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS

LivingRic Jordan will report on this workshop in the next issue.

biogeographic and stratigraphic applications. The wide

Cretaceous
I've always been a little envious of the other conference
workshops - they seem to have more of a cohesive approach to their get-togethers than the Cretaceous group.
With this in mind, I tried to sort out a loose itinerary for the
Cretaceous Workshop, particularly since I had a desire to
air the subject of the Cretaceous Stage Boundaries Symposium, which was about to happen in Brussels the following
week, and since a couple of colleagues had expressed awish, well in advance of the conference, to show somemicroscope slides at the workshop. This, by the way, is anextremely useful form of communication which we don't
make enough use of, and one which I hope we might

diversity of the group, which nannofossil workers are still
prone to lump together as Thoracosphaera spp., is particularly shown by the range of wall structures now known,
as described in detail by Dorothea Janofske, and also illustrated in a number of other presentations.
New techniques and problems
A number of interesting and diverse presentations can be
included in this category. On the computing front, Woody
Wise and Jim Pospichal demonstrated "Nanno Notes" theCenozoic nannofossil taxonomic database system they aredeveloping for the Ocean Drilling Program. This is now at

7

Journal ofNannoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

6th INA Conference, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 5 - 9.

Jurassic Nannofossil Working GroupThe Jurassic Working Group met briefly over lunch to discuss recent developments in Jurassic nannofossil research.
Discussion mainly focused around the biozonation chart,
Figure I (next page), which had been collated by myself forinclusion in a synthesis of recent Jurassic nannofossil research, presented at the 4th International Congress On
Jurassic Stratigraphy and Geology meeting in Mendo:za,
Argentina, October 1994. The data presented in the paper(Bown, in press) and chart includes new and old data provided by members of the working group. The chart is basedaround the zonation ofBown et al. (1988), correlated withthe boreal ammonite zonation. A number of secondary
bioevents are included on the chart, and the uppermost
Jurassic zones have been modified, based upon new datafrom the Kirnmeridgian-Volgian Gorodische section in Russia- these modifications will be fonnally introduced in Bown
and Cooper (in prep.). Also included, and tentatively correlated, are the tethyan zonation ofBralower et al. ( 1989),
bioevents from the thesis research of Jim Bergen (in press,and hopefully out soon!!), and a brief synthesis of Italiannannofossil data provided by Emanuela Mattioli andothers.
Pau/Bown

exploit at the neXt conference, in light of some of thechanges described by Shirley in her ICBN pieces in thisissue; particularly, I'm thinking of the new rule allowing us
to designate new types for old, line-drawn taxa. Wouldn't
it be great to know that what you ' re calling Staurolithitesl
Chiastozygus!Zeugrhabdotus species-whatever is thesame as everyone else's? I know I' m getting well ahead ofmyself here, but if you think it' d be a good idea for us tomaybe produce a joint work reillustrating and redescribing
all of those annoying taxa, please get in touch with me andstart collecting together your slides and photos (I'm assuming here that everyone's happy for me to act as coordinator for the next workshop, which I'm willing to dounless someone else has an urgent desire to do it - let meknow your thoughts on this, too).
During the workshop, the subject of standardisation of species abundance was brought up. I felt that there
might be some benefit to be gained from at least having
standard estimated abundances (e.g. Abundant = > 10
specimens per field of view; Common = 1-10 specimens
per field of view; Few = 1 specimen per 2-10 fields ofview; Rare= 1-2 specimens per traverse), simply because,
at present, different workers ' abundance rankings are atsuch variance, and in the past, if not so much now, certain workers have failed to include their abundance categories in their publications.This effectively makes their work
impossible to evaluate. It was generally remarked that thisidea was unworkable, although I am still of the opinion that
it would be better if workers at least used abundance categories they've seen published elsewhere (I took mine froman ODP volume), rather than make up their own every timethey plot a range-chart.
Another point raised was that of publishing complete range-charts. It has long been a gripe of mine, since
I've been working on stage-boundary sequences aroundthe globe, that the publication of comprehensive rangecharts is still not universally viewed as entirely necessary,either by some workers or, more annoyingly, by certain
journal editors. I consider it vital that we disseminate suchdata- how else will Cretaceous research progress and, again,
how else is anyone supposed to evaluate or utilise yourwork? With this in mind, I' m wondering if it might be useful
to dedicate a part of the Journal to publishing range-chart
data that perhaps is too large to be published in full elsewhere. Let me know what you think. Would you use sucha facility? I know I would, but I guess it wouldn't look rightfor the Editor to be the only one to do so!
The workshop attendees , most vociferously
Katharina who has been involved in the subject for many
years, then launched into a discussion of nannofossils
and Cretaceous stage boundaries. Whilst involved in this,
I forgot to take any notes, and can't remember any details! However, this isn't a problem, since the report on
the Brussels conference appears below.
After the discussion had worn itself out, Yoram
Eshet and Lilian Svabenicka got out their slides, and everyone mingled to look at various workers' photomicrographs. I still think Cretaceous nannofossils are
the prettiest!
Jackie Burnett

REFERENCES

Bergen, J.A. In press.
Bown, P.R. In press. Recent advances in Jurassic calcareous
nannofossil research. Proceedings of the 4th International
Congress On Jurassic Stratigraphy and Geology.
Bown, P.R. & Cooper, M.K.E. In prep. Jurassic. A New Stratigraphical Index of Calcareous Nannofossils. British Micropalaeontology Society Series/Chapman & Hall, London.
Bown, P.R., Cooper, M.K.E. & Lord, A.R. 1988. A Calcareous
Nannofossil Biozonation Scheme for the early to mid
Mesowic. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 20(2): 91-114.
Bralower, T.J., Monechi, S. & Thierstein, H.R. 1989. Calcareous nannofossil wnation of the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary interval and correlation with the geomagnetic polarity
timescale. Marine Micropaleontology, 14: 153-235 .

COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSVOLUME
Author contribution guidelines for the conference volume are still unavailable. Dave Jutson was hoping to produce the proceedings as a special issue of the DGU journal but has experienced problems associated with therelaunch of a joint journal for the Danish and Greenland
Geological Surveys, which merged last summer, justproior to the conference. We will keep you informed!
Jackie Burnett
A 'THANK YOU'I wish to say a big 'thank you' to all the colleagues, bothold and new ones, for having signed on the greeting card,
which I received a couple of days ago (courtesy Shirley!).
It really made me very happy. My best wishes and greetings to [the] nanno-farnily.
Syed A. Jafar, Birbal Sahni Institute of
Palaeobotany, Lucknow, India

8

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

6th INA Conference, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 5 - 9.
Boreal Nf. Zones
Bown et al. 1988

Stages

z

~
0

z

NJ18*

<{
_J

z

10:

<{

0....

CJ
_J

z
~
z

>

0

0_J
0

0

z
z

<{

0
I

1-

i=

CO

NJ15b
NJ19

NJ19a NJ 15
NJ15a

OXFORDIAN

NJ14r-------t=-.··A·iieiv;iiicii························NJ13

CALLOVIAN

A. helvetica

BATHONIAN

H. cuvilfieri

W. barnesae
C. magharensis
L contractus
C. superbus

BAJOCIAN
W. manivitae

W. britannica

AALENIAN

C. margerefii
C. magharensis
L. contractus
R. incompta
D. criotus

TOARCIAN
C. superbus
L. Slgillatus
L. hauffii
B. finchii

SINEMURIANHETTANGIAN

P. fiasicus

Figure 1: A biostratigraphic framework for the Jurassic based on calcareous nannofossils. * denotes modified zon~~ (Bown & Cooper, in prep.),+ denotes modified taxonomic nomenclature, dashed event line represent Tethyan taxa.

9

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

2nd International Symposium on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries, p. 10 - 11.

SUBCOMMISSION ON CRETACEOUS STRATIGRAPHY
2ND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CRETACEOUS
STAGE BOUNDARIES, BRUSSELS
8TH-16TH SEPTEMBER 1995
Host: Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Organiser: Annie V. Dhondt
It's possible that many of you are unaware of the controversies currently raging in Cretaceous stage-boundary circles, and that the Cretaceous world is about to be set on afirmer footing, stratigraphically speaking, by
having its stage and substage boundaries officiallystratotypified. This second symposium (the first, spookily,
having been held in Copenhagen in 1983) was held as theforum for the bringing together, and discussion, of data
concerning all of the Cretaceous stage boundaries. Consequently, the venue was attended by a cosmopolitan blendof scientists, representing expertise from the worlds ofbiostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy and chemostratigraphy. Seventy-seven workers registered to give talks,
and 75 to present posters!
There was a schizophrenic air to this conference:
the aim of the meeting was, primarily, to decide upon
GSSPs (Global boundary Stratotype Sections and Points)
for the Cretaceous stages and substages. This includes
the identification of a particular sedimentary section,
along with a physical feature which marks the boundary
in that section. It should be noted that chronostratigraphic
units, such as stages, are defined by their lower boundaries, and unequivocally define a standard against which
other sections can be correlated. Requirements for such
GSSPs include ease of access, good exposure, stratigraphic
completeness, good correlation potential, abundant fossils, and thorough documentation with supporting
sedimentological, palaeontological, geochemical andpalaeomagnetostratigraphic information. Historical priority and usage also had to be taken into account. Although only one feature is chosen to mark the boundarypoint, it is preferable for the section to include as many
specific stratigraphic markers as possible, whether thesebe biohorizons, magnetic-polar reversals, or geochemicalsignals or values. Reports comprising the above hadlargely been submitted to the Working Group Chairmen
prior to the conference. The Working Groups sessions, atwhich the proposals were debated, ran all day, every day.
At the same time, however, there was a full program oftalks scheduled elsewhere in the building! We're afraid
we cannot report on these, since we attended all of theWorking Group sessions, but needless to say, the talks
reflected the variety of geographical and stratigraphicalexpertise, and the diversity of stratigraphical tools being
employed, of the participants. The whole event was ablyco-ordinated and staged by Dr. Annie Dhondt (herself apalaeontologist), who I didn't see get a moment's rest
from start to finish!
The lUGS International Commission on
Stratigraphy is responsible for coordinating the selection
and approval ofGSSPs, and the recommendations of theCretaceous Subcommission will go forward to this corn-mittee at the Beijing meeting of the lUGS this sunimer.
The recommendations of the Cretaceous Subcommission
were generally supported by several secondary reference
sections and also secondary marker points or events.
It is encouraging to rep(>rt that nannopalaeontologists were well represented at Brussels (eight of us, if
we remember rightly) and, although few nannofossil
events were recommended as primary marker events, inalmost every case the relationship between the boundary
event and the associated nannofossil events are clear.
Paul Bown & Jackie Burnett
UPPER CRETACEOUS
I attended all of the Working Group sessions for the
Albian/Cenomanian through to the Campanian/
Maastrichtian boundaries. My raison d'etre for the past
eight years has been to see that nannofossils were notoverlooked at this meeting, and that everyone would havea clear idea of how nannofossil events related to both theproposed stage boundary events and the stratotype sections. I would like to make it clear at this point, that I had
no realistic idea that any of the boundary events picked for
the Upper Cretaceous would be nannofossils, and did
not go with the intention of putting forward events which
I did not deem to be acceptable at this stage. From the
beginning, it was made clear by the Committee that they
were looking for events which closely approximated theboundaries already (unofficially) in use. Since, historically, the boundaries and substage boundaries have commonly been identified by macrofossil (ammonite,belemnite, echinoid, inocerarnid bivalve) events whichhave proved their utility, and been widely used over theyears, and since I have been working with a group which
combined expertise from all of these fossil groups, andmicrofossils, it seemed to me to be more reasonable tohave this integrated data tolput forward than to be out ona limb, trying to make nannofossils fit the part. I firmly
believe, however, that our ~me will come, once the general fossil community realises that planktonic groups, suchas nannofossils and forami era, are much more useful forcorrelative purposes that benthonic/nekto-benthonicgroups whose stratigraphi datums are more at the mercyof sea-level fluctuations, i. . whose FADs and LADs are
more prone to diachrone · than those of planktonic
groups. I'm aware that othe nannopalaeonto-logists may
not view the situation in ·s light but I am happy with
the integrated data the gr up I work with presented at
this meeting.
Nannofossil and pi
onic foraminiferal eventswere brought to the fore at ery opportunity, most vociferously in the Upper Cretac us by myself, Katharina, Jim
Bergen, Sylvia Gardin, and sabella Premoli-Silva (who, I=========================10============~==========~

2nd International Symposium on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries, p. 10 - 11.

must say, it was a pleasure to meet at last!). The Upper
Cretaceous Working Groups, although each having a designated Chairman, benefitted greatly from having Jim
Kennedy in attendance, who at every opportunity (notbeing one to hide his considerable expertise concerning
Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy under a bushel!) summarised each stage and substage boundary - both the potential stratotypes and events (obviously largely based on ourgroups' research but not exclusively so). His summaries
were most useful because he did his home-work before
arriving, and had data at his finger-tips, but also because
he is an enlightened macropalaeontologist who is fully
aware of the potential and utility of nannofossils in
stratigraphy (it has taken years to train him, however!). His
attitude, which was transmitted to the 'audience', was completely at variance to one particular Chairman, who shallremain nameless, but who obviously has no interest in
nannofossils or planktonic foraminifera ...
This was the most exhausting meeting I've everattended. This is not a criticism, however: the Working
Group sessions made full use of their scheduled times
and more; every single point was debated; tempers were,at times, lost and soothed! At the end of each session, we
took a vote (not the final vote - this was to have been
carried out by post, to include all those members of theWorking Groups who were unable to attend the conference), to determine the event and section we were most
happy with, based on the preceeding discussions. As far
as I can remember, there were no hung votes, and it seems
likely that the reconunendations of each Working Groupwill be carried. These reconunendations will, hopefully,
be approved in Beijing in August. And then, after publication of the relevent data, we will have precise boundaries (set in stone!) for us to work from and correlate with.
The details of the proposals put forward at theUpper Cretaceous Working Group sessions appear in conjunction with the work I presented at both the Copenhagen and Brussels Conferences, elsewhere in this issue.
Jackie Burnett
LOWER CRETACEOUS
The reconunended GSSPs for the Lower Cretaceous are
as follows:
Berriasian Stage
Chairman: Victor A. Zakharov, Institute of Geology,
Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
University Avenue 3, 630090, Novosibirsk 90, Russia
Section: no decision. Suggestions included:
La Faure, Ravin de Deysniece, Alps de Provence, France
Section Z, Rio Argos, Caravaca, Murcia, Spain
Puerto Escano, Provincia de Cordoba, Spain
Point: no decision. Suggestions included:base subalpina Anunonite Subzone, occitanica Anunonite
Zone
base jacobi Anunonite Zone
Comments: not surprisingly, no firm decisions werereached on either the section or marker for this boundary
stratotype. This boundary is certainly one ofthe most difficult to correlate on an inter-regional scale, with virtu-

Journal of N annoplanlcton Research, 18, I, 1996.

ally no possibility of correlating boreal and tethyan sections. Further documentation was requested and a final
decision has been delayed.
V alanginian Stage
Chairman: Luc Bulot, Institut Dolornieu, Universite
Fournier, F-38031 Grenoble Cedex, France
Section: probably Montbrun les Bain, France
Point: probably base Kilianella pertransiens Anunonite
Zone, or FO C. darderi (calpionellid)
Hauterivian Stage
Chairman: Jorg Mutterlose, Intitut fur Geologie, Ruhr
Universitat Bochum, Universitatsstr<ille 150, D-44801
Bochum, Germany
Section: La Charce
Point: FO Acanthodiscus radiatus (ammonite), i.e. base
A radiatus Anunonite Zone
Hauterivian Substage (Lower/Upper boundary)
Section: ?La Charce
Point: LAD Cruciellipsis cuvillieri (nannofossil)
Barremian Stage
Chairman: Pete F. Rawson, Dept. of Geological Sciences,
University College London, Gower Street, London, WCIE
6BT, UK
Section: Rio Argos, Caravaca, Murcia, Spain
Point: FO Spitidiscus hugii (anunonite), i.e. baseS. hugii
Anunonite Zone
Barremian Substage (Lower/Upper boundary)
Section: ?Section X.KV, Caravaca, Murcia, Spain
Point: FO Ancycloceras vandenheckei, i.e. basevandenheckei Anunonite Zone
Aptian Stage
Chairman: Elisabetta Erba, Dip. di Scienze della Terra,
Universiti di Milano, via Mangiagalli 34, I-20 133 Milano,
Italy
Section: Gorgo a Cerbara, Umbria-Marche Basin, central Italy
Point: base MO magnetic chron
Albian Stage
Chairman: Malcolm B. Hart, Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth,
PL48AA, UK
Section: ?Vocontian TroughPoint: ?FAD Prediscosphaera columna fa (nannofossil)
Albian Substage (Lower/Middle boundary)
Section: ?Les Cotes Noires de Moeslain, St. Dizier, NE
Reims, France
Point: ?FO Lye/liceras lyelli (anunonite)
Albian Substage (Middle/Upper boundary)
Section: ?Vocontian Trough or Texas
Point: FO Diploceras cristatum (ammonite) (==FO
Inoceramus su/catus (inocerarnid))11==========================

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

S. van Heck: The ICBN, p. 12 - 13.

THE ICBN: THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW- 13
Shirley E. van Heck, Sarawak Shell Berhad, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia
As discussed in the review elsewhere in this journal, a newissue of the Botanical Code has appeared, and it is significantly different from the previous Code. It would be too
lengthy to list all of the changes and new numbers. Minorchanges, such as in the references to other articles, are ofcourse a logical consequence of the change in so many
article numbers, and will not be mentioned
either, but I would like to discuss the changes in articles
covered previously in this column, in order to keep track of
the route we were following. Therefore, on a chapter-bychapter basis:

Preamble: One item was added, on cultivated plants.
Division I
Principles: No changes.
Divisionll
Chapter I: Ranks of taxa. Not much has changed, exceptthat now the term 'phylum' is acceptable as a synonym for'division'. Art. 4 has been renumbered.
Chapter 11: Names of taxa. Those ofyou who have followed this column may remember the rather convoluted
route I took in discussing the typifie<\tion of taxa (van Heck,
1994a, b), in an attempt to group the rules dealing withtypes in a more logical sequence. It appears that the botanical committee also recogniSed the illogical sequence of
those rules in the 1988 Code, for they have changed thesequence of rules in section 2, on typification, completely.
Virtually all of the rules in this section now have a different
number, some have been omitted, some merged, and somenew rules and recommendations have been added.
As mentioned in the review, one interesting new
article is the following:
9.7. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected toserve as an interpretive type when the holotype, lectotype
or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identifiedfor
purposes ofthe precise application ofthe name ofa taxon.
When an epitype is designated, the holotype, lectotype or
neotype that the epitype supports must be explicitly cited.

Since Art.8. 3 states that an illustration may be uSed(for non-fossil plants) if it is impossible to preserve a specimen as the type, and the recommendation specifically refers to that article, it is not quite clear to me how specimensthat no longer exist can help to determine the applicationof a name. After all, only the original author would haveaccess to the specimens and he would have no problems
with the application of a name he created himself. Thisissue is clearly not yet resolved.
Section 3 deals with priority and consists of Art.11 andArt.l2. Art.l1 has been extended to include several articlesof the previous Chapter V. In section 4, on the limitationsof the principles of priority, the main changes occur in
Art.14 and Art.15, which deal with conservation and sanctioning, and do not much concern us. The only relevantchange is that conservation is now made easier.
Chapter lli: Nomenclature of taxa according to their rank.
This chapter comprises articles 16 to 28. No significant
changes occur, except that some rules have been added
and, consequently, some renumbering has taken place. In
Art.23, which deals with the names of species, I found thenew phrasing of some rules ambiguous (as in Art. 23. 6), but
a new rule helps:
Art.23.8. Where the status ofa designation ofa species is
uncertain under Art. 23. 6, established custom is to be followed (Pre. 10).
Chapter IV: Effective and valid publication. Section 1, on
effective publication, has been completely renumbered, butotherwise not changed. Some very substantial changes,
however, occur in the section on validity. Several newrules have been added to Art.32, some of which affect us.
The following has been added to Art. 32.1:
32.1 .... In addition, subject to the approval ofthe XVI International Botanical Congress, names (autonyms excepted) published on or after 1 January 2000 must be
registered.

This article, therefore, offers the possibility to se-

32.2. Registration is effected by sending the printed mat-lect a type for some of those species names which are based

ter that includes the protologue(s), with the name(s) toon simple drawings which do not offer enough detail, e.g.
some of the species of Arkhangelskij and G6rka.

be registered clearly identified, to any registering officedesignated by the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy.

The new code still offers no clarity on the acceptability ofan illustration to serve as a type instead of a specimen: see
discussion in issue 10 of this column (van Heck, 1994a)
underthethenArt.9.3 (nowArt.8.3). One new recommendation creates some confusion in my mind:
8A.l. When a holotype... is an illustration (see Art.8.3),
the specimen or specimens upon which that illustration
is based should be used to help determine the application of the name.

This new idea, although not approved yet, is going
to trigger a lot of discussion. If we, as nannoplankton spe~cialists, want to have any input into the validity ofnannoplankton names, we have to be well prepared with afunctional database at the least.
Changes to articles 3 3 to 3 5 are limited to reshuflling of thenumbers, but another new high-impact rule appears in
Art.36:

12==========================

S. van Heck: The ICBN, p. 12- 13 .

36.3 . In order to be validly published, a name ofa taxon offossil plants published on or after 1 January 1996 mustbe accompanied by a Latin or English description or
diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively published Latin or English description or diagnosis.
Latin is still required for recent plants, but at leastfrom now on any other language is invalid. To be fair, mosttaxa of recent years have been published in English, but it
is now compulsory. The INA hereby officially recommends
English, rather than Latin.
No significant changes occur in the next few articles, but
a rule has been added to Art.45:
45.2. After 1 January 2000, when one or more ofthe otherconditions for valid publication have not been met prior
to registration, the name must be resubmitted for registration after these conditions have been met.
Several new rules were added to Art.46, on citation, but I
do not see any significant changes or deviations from
common practise. The only change I can detect is that,
whereas the previous Code stated (Art.46.2) that the word'in' should be used when referring to a name by one author in the publication of another, the present Code recommends that only the author of the new name is quoted(Art.46.2, note 1).
No other significant changes occur in this chapter.
Chapter V: Rejection of names. This chapter used to beentitled, 'Retention, choice, and rejection ofnames andJournal of Nannoplanlcton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

epithets'. The change is a significant one, because originally the chapter comprised articles 51 to 72, and now contains only articles 51 to 58. Many of the original articles
have been deleted, and others are included elsewhere in
the Code. In what is left, not many changes occur, apartfrom the wording and numbers.
Chapter VI: Names of fungi with a pleomorphic life
cycle. This chapter has only one article which, fortunately,
does not concern us.
Chapter VD: Orthography of names and epithets andgender of generic names. After all of tl1e deletions andchanges in the previous ·chapters, the numbers have obviously been altered, but other than that I have been able
to detect only one change, an addition:

60.10. The use ofan apostrophe in an epithet is treated as
an error to be corrected by deletion of the apostrophe.
The rest of the code contains procedures and appendicesfor special groups.

REFERENCES
Greuter, W. 1988. International Code ofBotanical Nomenclature (Berlin Code). Koeltz Scientific Books: 328 pp.
Greuter, W. et al. 1994. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code). Koeltz Scientific Books: 389 pp.
Heck, S.E. van 1994a. The ICBN: things you need to know10. Journal ofNannoplankton Research, 16(2): 55-58.
Heck, S.E. van 1994b. The ICBN: things you need to know11. Journal ofNannoplankton Research, 16(3): 107-108.

==========================13==========================

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

NEW BOOKSPROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH INTERNATIONAL NANNOPLANKTONASSOCIATION CONFERENCE, SALAMANCA 1991

The Proceedings of the 5th INA Conference held in Salamanca in 1991 have already been printed. The volume will be sent
free of charge to all Salamanca conference participants. However, about 100 issues are still available to all specialists
interested in nannoplankton biostratigraphy, paleoecology, biogeography .... etc, that were not able to attend the conference. In this case, the volume price is 30 US dollars (3. 500 Spanish Pesettas), including the mailing costs. Please, send
your orders to:
dr. Jose-Abel Flores
Departamento de Geologia
Universidad de Salamanca
Spain
fax: 34-23-294514

Email: flore:s@N>OOO.usal.es========================~14==========================

S.E. van Heck: Results of the survey on mounting media.

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, l , 1996.

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ON MOUNTING MEDIA
Shirley E. van Heck, Sarawak Shell Berhad, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia

A fair number of reactions were received, concerning thedifferent mounting media used in nannofossil slide preparation, in response to my request for information (JNR,
16(3)). There is a wide range of products, and I have theimpression that this survey includes most of them. As
most of us know, there are basically two- types of medium: those affixed by applying heat, and those by applying UV light (although only one example of the latter
was reported). The various opinions on each product appear in the remarks: remarks from different individuals
have only been slightly edited, and are prefixed by anasterisk.
(Editor 's note: xylene and toluene are carcinogens. The products containing these solvents should be
used in a fume-cupboard.)
Product name: Norland Optical Adhesive 61
Brand name: Norland Optical Adhesive
Supplier: Norland Products Inc., 695 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, New Brunswick, N.J. 08902, US~ Tech Optics, Unit 6
Cala Industrial Estate, Tannery Road, Tonbridge, Kent TN9
IRF,UK.
How to apply it: 2/3 drops applied to slide or coverslip,
mount coverslip, expose slide to UV light (around30 minutes).
Known durability: >lOyears
Refractive index: 1.56
Remarks: *does not keep very long in its bottle, evenwith refrigeration, so you have to be prepared to order it
every 6-12 months; *UV light for curing is not present at all
remote sites (sunlight is only unavailable at the Northand South Poles during winter! - Ed), while hot-plates
for curing other media can be found at almost any location; *we tried [Norland] a few years ago but we were notpleased with the way [the nannofossils] seemed to have amilky glow in phase. This gave me a headache after a few
hours; *one of our contractors used [Norland] but I asked
them to discontinue this because it caused milky haloes
around the coccoliths, and appeared to have shrunk, pulling coccoliths apart (it's possible these e.ffocts are causedby additives in the drilling-mud- Ed.); *having used
Canada balsam, a petroleum jelly recipe, Petropoxy andLakeside 70 previously, we have found Norland to be thecleanest (droplets from the bottle do not need to touchanything but the slide, there is no excess to clean oft),easiest (does not need to be mixed and can be cured insunlight in the absence of a UV lamp; slides do not requiresealing) and safest (no toxic fumes, no heat) medium to use.
We have experienced no effects on the nannofloras
mounted with it, for a range of sediment types and ages,
including industrial samples.
Product name: Canada balsam
Supplier: Sigma Chemical Co., PO Box 14508, St. LouisMO, US~ Aristoforma-Interchemica, Kruisweg 405-411,

1437 CJ Rozenburgh, The Netherlands; Serva
Feinbiochemica, Heidelberg/NewYork.
How to apply it: 1 drop on glass slide or coverslip (N. B. do
not apply medium directly onto smear), heat to 70-80°C to
let the solvent evaporate (test by scooping a little with aneedle and letting it cool: if it becomes brittle all solvent
has evaporated), apply coverslip. Excess Canada balsam
can be removed, and the edges of the coverslip sealed with
nail-polish. Alternatively, a cellulose acetate filter (rnillipore
HAWP-filter) containing the plankton can be transferred
onto the medium upside down. When the filter is soaked,
the ensemble can be mounted on a slide with another(heated) drop of Canada balsam.
Known durability: >25 years
Refractive index: 1.52-1.54
Remarks: *we had some problems with coccoliths dissolving (on the slide) in the past, when we used the rapid,
high-heat method. When we realised that fluid Canadabalsam has a pH of 4, we switched to the slower, low-heat
method to make sure all solvent had evaporated and the
pH was neutral; *Canada balsam is in fluid form (not necessarily- Ed.) , stored in a bottle. Use fume-cupboard when
applying; *we ceased to use Canada balsam about 10 years
ago for two reasons: (a) it became too expensive, compared to other media, and (b) the solvent was (is?) xylene,
a carcinogen.
Product name: Synthetic Canada balsam
Brand name: Rhenohistol (no longer distributed)
Supplier: E. Merck, Darmstadt, Germany.
How to apply it: liquid medium, best results when cured
rapidly with high heat; coverslip must be lightly tapped
during heating to break seal on the edges of the coverslip
to allow for out-gassing in order to obtain proper cure.
Known durability: > 18 years, when properly cured
Refractiveindex: 1.52
Product name: Synthetic Canada balsam
Brand name: Caedax (no longer distributed)
Supplier: E. Merck, Darmstadt, Germany.
How to apply it: best results when cured rapidly with highheat.
Known durability: >28 years, when properly cured
Refractive index: 1.56
Remarks: *this liquid medium is still my first choice toensure excellent slide preparations but supplies are very
low. Its use is comparable to that of your grandmother's
good china: "you bring it out only for special occasions";*I first used Caedax, which was smelly but great otherwise.
Those slides are still O.K. after 20 years, but it was taken off
the market. Then I used Petropoxy, and all my slides that
didn't have abundant calcite in them began to dissolve(N.B. Petropoxy 154 should not be used as.a mountingmedium under any circumstances, since many people discovered that it dissolves nannofossils on the slide I -Ed. ).
I then switched to Norland Optical.

========================15======================~

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

Product name: Thermoplastic resin
Brand name: Lakeside 70
Supplier: Production Techniques Limited, 13 Kings Road,
Hampshire, UK; Production Techniques Limited, RFD5,
Concord Ridge, New Town, CT-06470, USA; more practically, ask any friendly thin-section technician for a trial
sample.
How to apply it: heat slide or coverslip to >70°C, and apply
like lipstick.
Known durability: > 10 years
Refractive index: similar to Canada balsam
Remarks: *solid, fume cupboard not needed. Soluble inwhite spirit (paintbrush cleaning-fluid). I apply Lakeside 70
to the coverslip then put it on the prepared slide; *my(admittedly small) experience ofLakeside is that it is messy
to use (it takes a lot of practise to get the right amount on
the coverslip and be able to get the coverslip of the stick
before it cures!), easy to get contaminated (it comes in stick
form, with no covering), and you have to be quick to get
the bubbles out before it sets solid (it sets as soon as you
take it off the hotplate).
Product name: Piccolite 600/o in Xylene
Supplier: Ward's.
How to apply it: heat slide with smear on it to 350F ( 180°C).
Apply 1 drop to coverslip, place on slide, 'cook' slide forabout 10 minutes; most of the small bubbles will march to
the edge of the slide while it is cooking, the rest will disappear when the slide cools (NB. the bubbles remain in
Piccolite in Toluene).

S.E. van Heck: Results of the survey on mounting media.

Known durability: >lOyears
Refractive index: 1.52
Remarks: *we tried the UV-setting medium a few years
ago but we were not pleased with the way [thenannofossils] seemed to have a milky glow in phase. We
tested all the brands of mounting media we could find on
the market and liked this one best.
Product name: Elvacite acrylic resin
How to apply it: attach nannofossils to coverslip with
polyvinyl alcohol (solid). Make 1-5%water solution. Glue
coverslip to slide with Elvacite acrylic acid. This is a solidand has to be dissolved in xylene: 32g resin to 60ml
xylene.
Product name: Rapid mounting medium for microscopy
Brand name: Entellan Neu
Supplier: E. Merck, D-61 Darmstadt, Germany.
How to apply it: by heating.
Remarks: *personally, I prefer this medium to Canadabalsam as I find it easier to handle: it is less viscous andemits less odour when heated, . ... [and] its [curing] time
is faster. Any excess amount that has dried up on theslide can easily be scraped off with a blade or paper cutter. There is no more need of acetone in cleaning the
prepared slide, unlike when Canada balsam is used.
Many thanks to all contributors: Jackie Burnett, Laurel
Bybell, Richard Constans, Helen Gillespie, Martin
Jakubowski, Marietta De Leon, Musa bin Musbah, Mike
Styzen, Paul van der Wal, and Jeremy Young.

16==========================

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996

Y. Eshet: Obtaining rich nannofossil assemblages ..., p. 17- 21.

OBTAINING RICH NANNOFOSSIL ASSEMBLAGES FROM'BARREN' SAMPLES: PROCESSING ORGANIC- RICH ROCKS IN
NANNOFOSSIL INVESTIGATIONS
Yoram Eshet, Geological Survey ofIsrael, 30Malkhe Yisrael Street, Jerusalem 95501, Israel

Abstract: Campanian-Maastrichtian carbonate and marl successions in Israel are rich in organic matter(OM) of marine algal origin. Samples from these sections, which were originally processed for nannofossil
study by standard techniques, were found to be almost completely devoid of nannofossils. However, removalof the OM by approximately 10 hours of controlled bleaching with sodium hypochlorite (household
bleach) yielded extremely rich and diverse nannofossil assemblages. It is suggested that, by selectively
bleaching the OM, calcareous nannofossils which were incorporated within the intricate organic debris
were released. The fact that, after bleaching, both abundance and species diversity were clearly increased,
and the preservation of the nannofossils had not changed significantly, suggests that the bleaching agent
did not 'attack' the nannofloras and did not produce a biased assemblage. The proposed preparation
method enables rich and diverse calcareous nannofossil assemblages to be recovered from samples which
would have provided poor, or even barren, assemblages with the deployment of standard processing
techniques.

Introduction
One of the commonly-employed procedures for preparing
slides for calcareous nannofossil study involves crushing
the rock into a powder, suspending the powder in distilledwater, allowing the heavier fraction to sink, and preparing
a slide from the remaining suspension (Moshkovitz & Erlich,1976). For the study of Campanian-Maastrichtian nannofossils in organic-rich carbonates ofocean-phytoplanktonic
origin (Bein et al., 1990; Eshet et al., 1994), this processing
technique proved to be inadequate: since most calcareous
nannofossils were encased within the dominant OM debris, few nannofossils were seen under the light-microscope,even after concentrating them, using the suspension method
described above. Some of the samples were even considered to be barren. Herein, a new preparation method is described, which enables rich and diverse calcareous nannofossil slides to be obtained from organic-rich material.

SAMPLENUMBER
I

13
15

Z5
33
34
37
38
46
47

ABUNDANCE

TOM(%)

16.5
17.0
11.0
18.8
11.5
8.5
6.7
3.8
2.0

2.0

Before

10
9
13

6
1Z
15
13

16
10
15

After

39
35
41
37
33
48
50
51
49
54

Materials
Fifty-three organic-rich, Campanian-Maastrichtian coresamples from the M-8 core-hole (southern Israel) were processed and analysed in this study. The section belongs to
the Campanian-Maastrichtian 'En Zetim Formation. It comprises bituminous marls and chalks, with phosphatic hori~zons in the lower part (Figure 1). Organic content is high,reaching upto 25% TOM, with an average of 10% TOM(Figure I, Table 1). In order to examine and demonstrate
the effect of the proposed preparation method on the recovered nannofossil assemblages, ten samples were analysed before and after processing (Table 1). The same samples were used previously in an experiment which tested
the utility ofbleaching in palynological sample-treatment(Eshet & Hoek, in prep.). Samples and slides are stored at
the Geological Survey oflsrael, Jerusalem.

SPECIES
DIVERSITY
BeforeAfter

PRESERVATION

18

25

11

26

65
59
76
58
61
71
45
51
60
49

1Z
8
9

12
10

30

zz
zo

11

Z5
16
18

13

Z3

14

zo

Before

After

71
54
75
64
60
70
48
49
6Z
53

Table 1: Results of ten hours of bleaching of selected samples. Abundance = number of nannofossils per visual field. Preservation =percentage of complete specimens in the assemblage. The increase in abundance and species diversity, and the .~all but inconsistent change
in preservation, indicate the reliability of the bleaching technique.

==========================!?==========================

Y. Eshet: Obtaining rich nannofossil assemblages ... , p. 17 - 21.

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

<(

cl:!
Q)

- -

a:

w
-zu.. ....a.
(/)
(/)

(/)
(/)

Q)

....

~

(/)

w

Q)

a.
c
LlJ.o
UJ£
- :E :.=:..
(/)
(/)
Q)

....
LlJ a.

et -.:
a: ~0 .....Q)

>-

en
w
...J

z~ z~

0 :!::N 1)o::z .~ LL ,:,c. ...J:E ...J E ~oen_.._genN -.:enooa.
,..._c zen~z I.... Cc~:! 0 ,..........
~
0en
0
u.. . . . LL.;::>,:,c.
w 0~ ~ cu 0~ 0z ...... > !;;:
(/)

Q)

0

0

Q)

Q)

QI
z ....Q)-.;::zw
c::a:z
...JO

Cut.

·;:::

"en c
<(

t-

cu

C..N

z<(

c:

::,·-

gJ,

"tj Qj0cQ)"'O
·-

en
Q)

Q)

•••

t:
...J

w ...Jc Illv"' ..L

c

v-·

i

I

v"'

..L

47
46

..L

v"'

J'

V

..L

NC21

,~

310

v"'

..L

3ZO

a

, Cl)

oq;

II

v"'

v"'

V

B

30
v"'

v"'

()

a:

I-

(f)

~

~

>/'

v"'

E:

2<l>

.!;2l
::::::

c0

Cl)

<l>

.e

t:~

v"'

~

.;:=
Cl)
c

I-

w
z
w

..\!2
~

v"'

E:

:J

:s12

~

<(
()

)( Q

O.cos ta ta

NC20

350

360
"

25
70

v"'

I('
8v"'

v"'

"
380
v"'

Bv"'

J_

v
p

.s

•""

. ~

(!)~

v"'B

~

90

v"'

15

s"'

A

400

13

v"' P v"'

•
••
•

10

p

/'

G.ros-

etta

34
33

v"'

v"'

v"'

~ ~
~12

38
37

8

(j

a..:

v

8
v"

40

v"'

v'

v"'

N

.s
Q
:6

V

8

8

0

TOTAL ORGANICMATTER(%)..L

Q)~~:::::1

(.)

::z::
::z:: 0
t- <(
c.. w

300

.QO
0

c
w

"...J

NC22

§<C
c

~

<(

E
.._..

0
0
::z::

za::E :::!:a:<( (i) ~z1ij z1ij::E 0u..

z~
<( Q)

'Q)

>

0> ·N
~:!::
0 0

.!2

~

:s~

-

-"-.

<l>

E:

z (/)

-

c..
:E

-..... en

N"'8-

Q.siss.

NC19b

v"'

v"'

~

v"'

~

v'
~t(

chalk

mart
bitumenphosphate

1

I

0

~
I

I

10

20

TOM (%)

Figure 1: The M-8 sequence: litho- and biostratigraphy, and Total Organic Matter.

Sample processing
All organic-rich samples were treated according to the following procedure:(1) 2g of rock were crushed to a powder, added to
50ml of distilled water, and stirred thoroughly.
(2) This supension was then subjected to ultrasonictreatment for 1 minute. The suspension was again stirred
thoroughly, and allowed to stand for I minute so that somesettling could take place. Moshkovitz & Ehrlich ( 1976) sug-gested that, after 1 minute, most of the settled fraction does
not contain nannofossils, thus the suspended fraction was
decanted into another beaker and the settled fraction was
discarded. This suspension was allowed to stand for 10
minutes. Observation has shown that, after this period, mostof the nannofossils have settled out of suspension, and theremaining supernatent liquid contains only very fine, mainly
non-coccolithic particles (Eshet et al., 1992).
(3) Bleaching: The amorphous nature of the organic
residue, and the high organic-content of the samples, made======================~ 18 ========================

Journal of Nannoplanlcton Research, 18, I, 1996.

Y. Eshet: Obtaining rich nannofossil assemblages ... , p. 17 - 21.

it impossible to observe nannofossils which were incorporated into the thick OM debris. Therefore, it was necessary
to remove as much of the OM as possible, without affecting the nannofossils. For palaeontological preparations,oxidation of OM is usually performed using either 'Schulz
Solution' (a solution of potassium chlorate (KC103l in nitricacid (HN03)) or hydrogen peroxide (H.p2). These methods
have been described by Brown (1960), Faegri & Iversen( 1964) and Doher (1980), among others. In the present study,
the use of Schulz Solution produced a harsh chemical reaction which required the use of a fume-cupboard and othersafety measures. In addition, in some samples, thenannofossils were either etched or destroyed by the reaction. H.p2, on the other hand, was completely ineffective,
having no apparent effect on the OM, even after a 12-houroxidation period. This was probably due to the high organic-content of the samples.
Thus, the suspension obtained in step (2) was mixed
with 250ml of a 10% solution of sodium hypochlorite(NaClO). In this case, a commercial brand of household
bleach called 'Economica' was used to oxidise the excess
OM. Economica was used by Almogi-Labin et al. ( 1993) toremove excess OM in a forarniniferal study of similar
Campanian-Maastrichtian sections in Israel. NaCIO createsa basic chemical environment (A Bein, pers. comm., 1995)
and therefore does not dissolve calcite. It is thus safe to use
for nannofossil preparation, and does not require a fumecupboard or special safety measures.
For most samples, a period of 10 hours was sufficient to remove most of the OM, and to obtain a rich anddiverse assemblage, with no apparent damage to thenannofossils (Table 1, Figure 2). For samples with a particularly high OM-content, a slightly longer oxidation period was required. In order to examine the effect of OM
digestion by NaClO, and the process of liberation of
narmofossils from the OM, a controlled experiment was
conducted on ten samples of different OM-content (Table1): 5g of each sample were soaked in NaClO for 10 hours. A
comparison was then made between the pre- and post-

oxidation assemblage, including the abundance (numberof observed nannofossils per visual field, NVF), species
diversity, and preservation (percentage of completenannofossils in the assemblage). The results suggest thefollowing: (a) ten hours are enough to oxidise most of theOM, and to expose calcareous nannofossils for microscopic
study; (b) nannofossil assemblage 'richness' was increased
dramatically: the average abundance increased from 11.9
to 43.7 NVF, and the observed average species diversity
increased from 11.8 to 22.5 species per sample; (c) there
was no significant change in preservation, thus the bleaching process did not destroy the nannofossils nor considerably alter the assemblage composition.
(4) Because NaClO tends to crystallise on the slide
during slide-preparation, it must be removed: after bleaching, the suspension was transferred to a centrifuge-tube,
and centrifuged at 2000tpm for 5 minutes. The supematentliquid was decanted, distilled water added, and the suspension centrifuged a second time. The supematent liquid wasagain decanted.
(5) The white, OM-free sediment was diluted with
distilled water until the suspension became pale milkywhite. One drop was mounted on a slide with Canada Bal-sam
Calcareous nannofossil aSsemblages
The procedure utilised in the present study led to the recovery of well-preserved, rich and diverse assemblages ofcalcareous nannofossils from most of the samples (Plate 1).
The most common fossils were: Watznauerra barnesae,
Micula decussata, Prediscosphaera spp., Thoracosphaera spp., Eiffellithus spp., Ahmue/lere/la spp.,
Cribrosphaerella ehrenbergii, Glaukolithus spp.,
Quadrum sissinghii, Q. trifidum, Tranolithus spp.,
Lithraphidites spp., Vagalapilla spp., and Vekshinella
spp .. A complete taxonomic list and a distribution chart for
the M-8 sequence are given in Eshet & Moshkovitz (inpress).

30 + - - -20 + - - 10 t--t--0 +--'==o Abundance Spec. o·IV.

Preserv.

Before bleaching After bleaching

Figure 2: Bar graphs showing changes in abundance, species diversity and preservation after ten hours of bleaching. Note the drastic
increase in abundance and species diversity, with no apparent decrease in preservation, suggesting that this method does not damage thenannofloras.

=======================19======================~

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

Summary

Bleaching the amorphous organic debris in organic-richcarbonates using NaCIO has been found useful in obtaining nannofossil-rich slides. Other preparation techniques
were found to be inadequate for processing this type ofmaterial. The proposed method is simple, rapid and inexpensive. A bleaching period of ten hours was found to
be most effective, although a shorter period will probably
be required for samples with a lower OM-content. Bleaching the OM led to a considerable rise in observed abundance and species diversity, without affecting the preservation of the nannofossils.

of

Acknowledgements
I thank T. Minster (GSI) and Helena Thomassen (LPP,
Utrecht) for assisting in sampling and selecting materials
from the M-8 section. A Almogi-Labin (GSI), A Bein (GSI)
and E. Sass (Hebrew University) are thanked for providing
bleached samples from the Zin and Shefela sections, whichwere used as comparative materials in the present study.
REFERENCES
Almogi-Labin, A., Bein, A. & Sass, E. 1993. Late Cretaceous
upwelling system along the southern Tethys margin (Israel):interrelationship between productivity, bottom water environments and organic matter preservation.Palaeoceanography, 8: 671-690.

Y. Eshet: Obtaining rich nannofossil assemblages... , p. 17 - 20.
Bein, A., Almogi-Labin, A. & Saas, E. 1990. Sulphur sinks andorganic carbon relationships in Cretaceous organic-rich carbonates: implications for evaluation of oxygen-poor depositi~
nal environments.AmericanJournal ofScience,290: 882-911.
Brown, C.A. 1960. Palynological Techniques. Louisiana State
University Press: 188pp.
Doher, I. 1980. Palynomorph separation procedures currently
used in the paleontology and stratigraphy laboratories. U.S.
Geological Survey, Circular 830: 29pp.
Eshet, Y.,Almogi-Labin,A. & Bein,A. 1994. Dinoflagellate cysts,
paleoproductivity and upwelling systems: a Late Cretaceous
example from Israel. Marine Micropaleontology, 23: 231-240.
Eshet, Y. & Hoek, R. In prep. Palynological processing of organic-rich rocks, or: How many times have you called apalyniferous sample 'barren'? (Submitted to Review of
Palaeobotany and Palynology.)
Eshet, Y. & Moshkovitz, S. In press . New nannofossil
biostratigraphy for Late Cretaceous organic-rich carbonatesin Israel. Micropaleontology.
Eshet, Y., Moshkovitz, S., Habib, D., Benjamini, C. & Magaritz,
M. 1992 . Calcareous nannofossils and dinoflagellate
stratigraphy across the Cretaceousffertiary boundary at Hor
Hahar, Israel. Marine Micropaleontology, 18: 199-228.
Faegri, K. & Iversen, J. 1964. Textbook ofPollen Analysis. Rather
Publishing Company, New York: 237pp.
Hoek, R. et al. In press.
Moshkovitz, S. & Erlich, A. 1976. Distribution of Middle andUpper Jurassiccalcareous nannofossils in the northern Negev,
Israel and in Gebel Maghara, northern Sinai. Bulletin of theGeological Survey of Israel, 69: 49pp.

========================~20==========================

Y. Eshet: Obtaining rich nannofossil assemblages... , p. 17- 2 1.

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

PLATE 1
Nannofossil assemblages before and after bleaching
Example from Sample #47
All magnjfications x37 50

1, 2: Microscope view before bleaching. Note outline of nannofossils
obscured by the thick covering of organic matter.

3 4: Microscope view after 10 hours of bleaching, which has removed
most of the organic matter. Note rich and diver e nannofossil assemblages
which were revealed .

========================= 21 ==========================

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

========================22========================

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

NANNOFOSSILS AND UPPER CRETACEOUS(SUB-)STAGE BOUNDARIES - STATE OF THE ART
Jackie A. Burnett, Research School of Geological & Geophysical Sciences, Birkbeck College &University College London, Gower Street, London, WCJ E 6BT, UK

Abstract: An integrated study of primarily nannofossil and macrofossil biostratigraphies (with someplanktonic foraminifera biostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy and magnetostratigraphy) around numerous
potential Upper Cretaceous stage and substage boundary sections, from a variety of geographical locations, has been in train since 1988. This project was devised in response to the discussions held at theoriginal Symposium on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries, held in Copenhagen in 1983 by the Subconunission
on Cretaceous Stratigraphy, and a subsequent 'call for help' by Dr. K. (von Salis) Perch-Nielsen (1986), in
both of which some potential boundary-stratotypes were identified. Most of these sections have been
examined in detail, in addition to numerous others. The work has been, and still is being, carried out incollaboration with Dr. W.J. Kennedy (Oxford), Prof. A.S. Gale (Greenwich/NHM), Prof. J.M. Hancock(ICL), and others.
An integrated approach was applied to these studies in order to overcome correlation problems
at stage boundaries. Although there was a strong historical precedent for macrofossil events to be used to
officially define the Upper Cretaceous stage and substage boundaries, macrofossils cannot be used todirectly date the majority of boreholes, nor any of the cores drilled by the Deep Sea Drilling Project nor
the Ocean Drilling Program. In the oceans, nannofossils and planktonic microfossils are, and have been,
extensively used for dating and correlation due to their small size, high abundance and wide geographicalcoverage. Complications have arisen in the past, with respect to correlation and boundary definitions in
shelf and oceanic sediments, because of this situation: unfortunately, it is already the case that we have an
unofficial system of stage boundaries defined on macrofossils for onshore sequences, and ones based onnannofossils and microfossils for the oceans.Thus, in order to precisely define a stage boundary, and,
importantly, to be able to correlate it, it was viewed as imperative that the stratigraphies of a number ofimportant fossil groups were precisely integrated.
These studies have integrated the biostratigraphies of nannofossils and macrofossils across potential stage and substage boundary stratotypes (Albian/Cenomanian to Maastrichtian/Palaeocene) aroundthe world. The chosen sequences represented all palaeobiogeographical regions. Thus, the discrepancies
between macrofossil and nannofossil approximations for potential stage boundaries has been largely
overcome. The nannofossil results are presented here in sununary and in the context of the provisional
proposals for stage and substage boundaries determined by the various Working Groups at the second
Symposium on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries, held in Brussels, in September, 1995. More detailed works,
which will incorporate nannofossil range-charts for all of the Upper Cretaceous stage and substage
boundary stratotypes in relation to the other stratigraphical events, are in preparation (Gale, Kennedy,
Hancock & Burnett, and combinations thereof). Proposals and data based on the results of many of thesestudies were presented, both at the Working Group sessions and as a poster, at the second Symposium on
Cretaceous Stage Boundaries and at the sixth International Nannoplankton Association Conference(Copenhagen, September 1995)

Introduction'
In responseto the discussions held at the original Symposium on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries(Copenhagen, 1983)
and comments made by Perch-Nielsen ( 1986), the British
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded an
extensive research program which would provide integrated
macrofossil, microfossil and nannofossil biostratigraphical,
and Sr-, 0- and C-isotope chemostratigraphical event sequences across Upper Cretaceous stage and substage
boundaries (Albian/Cenomanian to Maastrichtian/Palaeocene) for a variety of geographical locations. The
aims of these studies were to (i) provide an integration ofstratigraphic scales for the Upper Cretaceous, (ii) provide
more-accurate and higher-resolution biostratigraphic scales
for the Upper Cretaceous, (iii) improve and/or effect correlations between onshore and oceanic sequences, and thus(iv) propose the most useful stage boundary events andstratotypes for the Upper Cretaceous. By using an integrated approach, the research team was able to overcome
certain problems associated with simple, second-order correlation studies, which necessarily incorporate a degree of
error (sadly, some of which the author has seen reproducedin Working Group discussion documents). In examining a

number of sections per stage boundary, the team was able
to first evaluate the correlatability of events over wide geographical areas before proposing the best candidates for
Global Stratotype Sections and Points (GSSPs), as per therequirements of the Subcommission on Cretaceous
Stratigraphy.
Although a number of publications have alreadyresulted from this ptogram, further manuscripts are in preparation which particularly document the nannofossil datafrom the studied sections. Many of our data, therefore,
have not yet been published, and none of it has been combined to provide a complete view. One aim of the present
document is to provide a summary overview of both the
published, in press and in preparation nannofossil work,
the details of which will be used to formulate a new, highresolution nannofossil zonation for the Upper Cretaceous
which will incorporate the flexibility ofbeing applicable tohigh- and low-latitude sediments (Burnett in prep., a).
Nannofossils and stratigraphic utility
Nannofossil events do not appear to have been regarded
as very useful at the 1983 Syii1fX>sium, ammonites andforaminifera being to the fore, and no chapter dedicated to==========================23==========================

Journal of N annoplanlcton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.

nannofossils appeared in the conference volume (Bulletin
ofthe Geological Society ofDenmark, 33( 112), 1984), although Perch-Nielsen (1983) contributed to the abstracts
volume. One aim of this paper is to provide an overview fornannopalaeontologists and others on the status ofnannofossil events at Upper Cretaceous (sub-)stage
boundaries, in order to redress the balance of the earlier
meeting and to provide a firm basis for futurebiostratigraphical and correlative work.
As nannopalaeontologists know, nannoplankton
are, and have been since the Late Triassic, planktonic andgeographically widespread. Their planktonic habit has madethem less susceptible to sea-level fluctmttions than mostmacrofossil groups. Their cosmopolitan distribution, andtheir high diversity even in sub-polar regions, has provided
them with great correlation potential, some of which persisted even at times of heightened provincialism (e.g.
Burnett, 1990; Watkins et al., in press; Burnett, in prep. b,c). Their abundance in sediments, and the closely-spaced
sampling approach adopted by most nannopalaeontologists, means that first appearance datums (FADs) andlast appearance datums (LADs) can be fairly accurately
determined, as opposed to macropalaeontologists, who deal
with far fewer specimens and lower sample frequencies andwho, therefore, cannot be certain of detecting true FADs
or LADs. (NB. The FAD and LAD are distinct from thefirst and last occurrence of a taxon (FO, LO), which may be
specific to a particular section, and may thus have no global relevence.) During the research program, it was continually underlined that there were major problems associated with correlating between disparate macrofossil zones,
and particularly between the Boreal and Tethyan Realms(i.e. between belemnites and ammonites). In such cases,
nannofossils proved their efficacy as correlative tools.
Nannofossils are generally 1-301-lffi in length/diameter, which makes them ideal for dating borehole sequences,e.g. for the oil industry and the Ocean Drilling Program(ODP), situations in which macrofossils are mostly lacking.
In order to provide a truly global relevence for any designated GSSP, the GSSP should be correlatable with oceanic
sequences. Thus, there is a very real need for such GSSPs
to incorportate some definition in terms of nannofossils. It
is unfortunate that, at present, even though the majority of
ODP authors use the 'cosmopolitan' nannofossil
biozonation scheme originally devised from stagestratotype (and other) material by Sissingh (1977) and supplemented by Perch-Nielsen ( 1979, 1983, 1985), and eventhough the biozones have consequently been directly correlated with stages and the majority of nannofossil events
shown not to fall exactly at the commonly-used, but unofficial, (macrofossil-defined) stage boundaries, in oceanic
material the nannofossil events are often taken to define,rather than approximate, stage boundaries. This introducesa primary correlation error between the oceans and shelves,and between nannofossil biozones and other fossil
biozones. Workers using other fossil groups, or other dating methods, tend to understand the concept of the stage
rather than the specifics of the nannofossil biozone (i.e.
one tends not to be au fait with other biozonation
schemes). Thus, they use the stage interpretion for correlating their own results with, or discussing their results inrelation to. On the surface this may seem trivial but, as an
example, the author has been involved in some heated discussion concerning the dating of industrial borehole sequences, wherein the stage indicated by nannofossils was
not the stage indicated by another microfossil group. The
problem was not due to inaccurate biozonation by either
party, but simply that the biozonation for one fossil group
had not been directly correlated with the stage stratotype,such that the stages assigned to the zones could be described as arbitrary. When you consider that such apparent discrepancies are then passed on to people with little
or no biostratigraphical background (this happens inacadernia, too), who have no idea how to interpret suchapparent errors, it does become important. Is it any wonderthat second-order correlation-of-everything charts, withsuch inaccuracies built in, tend not to work? Even worse,such charts portray a confidence in correlation which any
expert will admit is, as yet, unfounded.
So, although not necessarily advocating the use ofany particular nannofossil event as a boundary marker, it
was seen as absolutely vital that GSSPs were defined witha clear knowledge of the associated nannofossil events.
The success/failure of transmission of this point of view toother members of the Stage Boundary Working Groups at
Brussels will eventually become apparent!
Upper Cretaceous nannofossil biozonation andstage boundaries- a historical perspective
In 1977, Sissingh published the second nannofossil zonation scheme for the entire Cretaceous (Thierstein publisheda more rudimentary one in 1976), introducing 26 numericalzones based on observations made from stage-stratotype
material and sequences elsewhere in France, and also fromDeiUOaik (sidewall cores?), western Germany, The Netherlands, Oman (sidewall cores), western Twtisia (Dyr el Kef),
Turkey (sidewall cores), the UK and North Sea, and theeastern USA. He also correlated the Upper Cretaceous
portion with planktonicforaminifera zones (Sissingh, 1978).
Previous schemes existed for parts of the column, based on
geographically-limited observations: Sissingh (1977) andPerch-Nielsen (1979, 1985) have provided overviews ofthese. The events used by Sissingh ( 1977) mirrored theseearlier observations to an extent, but some of the earlier
observations are now known to be either erroneous orephemeral. Thus, Sissingh's scheme stands as a commonlyused framework, although it is not without its problems,either. Certain· of these are discussed below but basicallystem from his use of many low-latitude taxon events (derived from the Tunisian sequence), and possibly his apparently erratic sampling methods (he examined mainly spotsamples from the type sequences). Perch-Nielsen (1979,
1983, 1985) supplemented Sissingh's (1977) biozones withher own (from the North Sea to the Mediterranean) and avariety of others' observations, and highlighted the factthat certain of Sissingh' s biozones were not applicable in
Boreal areas.
Surprisingly few nannopalaeontologists haveworked on material from the Upper Cretaceous type areas(the published work is summarised below), or have integrated nannofossil events with other fossil events. Data
from those that have has mostly been published in a sum-==========================24==========================

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Up~r Cretaceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.

marised format, rather than as detailed stratigraphical distribution charts. Consequently, it is virtually impossible toglean enough information from published sources to facilitate further resolution of the Sissingh/Perch-Nielsen
biozonation, nor to check tile validity of potential new
nannofossil events for a global zonation scheme. PerchNielsen ( 1985) commented that Upper Cretaceous coccolitil
zones have repeatedly been correlated with the classic
stages but that tile preservation of coccoliths in the stagestratotypes is variable and that "correlations have had to
be made via other fossils with the evident possibilities ofshifting boundaries higher or lower depending on one's
own preferences, tradition or wishful thinking''.(p.340)! Thishas demonstrably been the case, such that there is still noconsensus between current workers. It is hoped that tile
proposals put forward by the Brussels Working Groups,
and acceptance of these at the Beijing International Geological Congress in August, 1996, will filter through ourscience rapidly and change this situation for the better.
The Cenomanian type section is represented in andaround Le Mans, Sartlle (NW France). The nannofloras oftile Marnes de Ballon ('Lower' Cenomanian) and tile Craiede Theligny ('Middle' Cenomanian), botil close to Le Mans,
were described by Verbeek (1976). He used the FADs ofEiffel/ithus turriseiffe/ii, Lithraphidites alatus andGartnerago obliquum to subdivide the stage. The
Cenomanian nannoplankton of Ballon and Ste. UlphaceTheligny-Moulin de 1' Aunay were investigated by Sissingh( 1977). He was able to assign one nannofossil zone to thesections (CC9), based on the FAD of Eiffe//ithus
turriseiffelii, but his other Cenomanian marker event, tile
FAD of Microrhabdulus decoratus, was absent from these
sections (the reference section for the zone is in Tunisia).
This latter event has been found to be highly diachronousby the autilor. Sissingh ( 1977) noticed that predominantly
Tethyan, e.g. Tunisian, Late Cretaceous nannoplankton
assemblages ·.vere generally more diverse tlian more nortllerly, European (e.g. nortllemFrance) assemblages, tile latter being characteristically dominated by solution-resistant forms, a point also noted by Verbeek ( 1977). Verbeek( 1977) proposed tile utilisation of tile FAD ofLithraphidi tes
acutus between the FADs of Eiffellithus turriseiffelii andMicrorhabdulus decoratus in the 'Middle' Cenomanian.
Manivit et al. (1977) used the LAD of Hayesites albiensis
and the FAD of Lithraphidites acutus as as datunis in the'Middle' Cenomanian of the Theligny section. The
Lithraphidites acutus event is commonly substituted for
the FAD of Microrhabdulus decoratus, and this is followed by the author. Manivit et al. (1977) also utilised the
LAD of Microstaurus chiastius to subdivide CClO (fromthe FAD ofLithraphidites acutus), and this event has beenfound to be widely applicable.
Perch-Nielsen ( 1979, 1983, 1985) placed tile LAD of
Crucicribrum anglicum at the same level as tile LAD ofHayesites albiensis, at the base ofCC9B. At tile proposedboundaty stratotype, Mont Risou, Crucicribrumaf!glicum
was found to range from near the base of the uppermost
MF subzone of the Albian in CC9B to at least the Lower
Cenomanian (CC9C). She also used the FAD ofCorollithion kennedyi to furtller subdivide CC9, but placed
this event at the same level as the LADs of Watznaueria

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

britannica and Braarudosphaera africana. These eventsoccur above the Coro//ithion kennedyi FAD at Mont
Risou.
Birkelund et al. (1984) indicated that the FAD of
Eiffellithus turriseiffelii occurred slightly below tile FAD
of Hypoturrilites schneegansi (ammonite) and above the
LAD of Planomalina buxtor.fi (PF). Gale et al. (in press, a)found Eiffe//ithus turriseiffe/ii to be present well below
tile FAD ofMante//iceras mante//i (their proposed ammonite boundary event, which now, technically, lies just above
the boundaty), and well below tile LADs of Planomalina
buxtor.fi (PF) and Hayesites albiensis. In fact, the FAD of
Eiffel/ithus turriseiffelii was not identified in the interval
studiedatMontRisou (i.e. its FAD lies at least llOm below
the boundary tilere).
The type area for the Turonian is between Saumur
and Montrichard, around Tours (NW France). Manivit( 1971) studied tile 'Lower' Turonian at Chateau-du-Loir(NW of Tours) and atAmboise andFretevou (E ofTours),
and tile 'Middle' Turonian of Ste. -Maure-de-Touraine (Sof Tours) and Ponce-sur-le-Loir (N of Tours) but did notinclude stratigraphical distribution charts of specific sections, incorporating tile data, instead, into stage-by-stagenannofossil occurrences. She used tile FADs of Gartnerago
obliquum and Coro//ithion exiguum to apply nannofossil
zones to tile Turonian type succession, and correlated tilese
events with the Calycoceras naviculare and Acanthoceras
bizeti Ammonite Zones (Upper Cenomanian to Middle
Turonian), respectively. Botil nannofossil events are now
known to occur stratigraphically lower. Sissingh (1977) studied sections along the Cher Valley (E ofTours). He indicated that the FAD of Quadrum gartneri almost coincided
witil the 'base' of tile Turonian, and that Lucianorhabdus
maleformis (the FAD' of which he used as a marker in tile
Turonian, CC12) was not present in tile Turonian of tile
Cher Valley. Lucianorhabdus maleformis has proved to
be unreliable as a marker, and tile FAD of Eiffe//ithus
eximius is often substituted for it. This is followed by theautilor. Manivit et al. ( 1977) found Quadrum gartneri tooccur in the 'Lower' Turonian of Fretevou. Work by
Manivit with Zeigharnpour (in Robaszynski et al., 1982),
on outcrops in tile Saumurois area and a well at Civray-deTouraine, resulted in tile FAD of Quadrum gartneri being
placed in the Lower Turonian Mammites nodosoides Ammonite Zone. The FAD of Lucianorhabdus maleformis
was found to occur towards tile top of tile Kamerunoceras
turoniense Ammonite Zone ('Middle' Turonian), and the
FAD of Ei.ffellithus eximius in the Romaniceras kallesi
Ammonite Zone ('Middle' Turonian). (NB. lnRobaszynski(1983), the FAD of Eiffellithus eximius is shown to occur
in the R omatissimumAmmoniteZone.) Manivit (op. cit.)
concluded that tile type area's nannofloras were similar to
those found in north, south and south-eastern France.
The Cenomanian/Turonian boundary is characterised in many locations (shelf and oceanic, Boreal to Austral
regions)by hiati, condensation and black shales, the resultof an extensive oceanic anoxic event. This event is exploredin biostratigraphical detail by Bralower (1988) and Jarvis etal. (1988).
Birkelund et al. (1984) indicated that tile FAD of
Quadrum gartneri was "widely recognisable" (p.12) and==========================25==========================

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Crell!ceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.

FIGURE 1: COMPARISON OF STAGE· BOUNDARY
DEFINITIONS AND NANNOFOSSIL ZONESNANNOFOSSIL BIOZONATION
AND APPROXIMATE STAGE
BOUNDARIESPROPOSED STAGE
BOUNDARIES

after Slnlngh (1077, 1078) &Perch·Niol-. (1D78, 1D83, 1M&}

after
Bruosels Wor1<ing GroLP~. 1!195
U>

5c

e

STAGE
(APPROXIMATE)

w

.:=
[I!
'6

0

.?:-

z

w

N
Ill
::I

upper Upper
Maastrlchtian

Upper
Maastrichtlan

Lower
Maastrichtlan
Lower
Maastrichtian
to uppermost
Campanlan

z

~
t1

0

(/)

N

8

0
0

STAGE
(PROPOSED)

CD

....•

B
L---.
uppermost Maastrlchtlan~ 26 1--11*"---------1: tE '

1--~
B 25 1--

~ ~

Upper
Maastrichtlan

24~4-------~

Lower
B
Maastrichtlan
23
1--I""
A
1--...4----~--~~--=~==~---+-~4-~
Upper
1--Campanlan
C
1--I .._U(Boreel)upper Upper
B 22 ~
pper
Campanlan
Campanian~(Tethyan)I;::

lower Upper
Campanlan

21
1---

20

upper Lower
CampanlanB?

1--- 19A

Lower
Campanlan(Tethyan)c

Lower
Campanian

1--B 18

Lower
Campanlan(Boreel)

1---

~

A
Lower Campanlan/
Uoper Santonian

17

"'
_.

Upper Santonlan

Upper Santonian

16 f--r

Middle Santonlan

15 f--'-...

Lower Santonlan
Upper Conladan

1--J? ~~---,---=-,----,-~,_ft

upper ........,rSantonlan... 1--~Midd~·~le~C~on~l~~·an~~
I--Low~e~r~Sant~o~nlan~to 4--+1-4~[?
B
Uoper Coniadan __Lower
ConladenLower Conladan-13~
A

lower Lower Conlaclan to
Uooer Turonlan
Middle Turonlan touooer Uooer Cenomanlan
Upper
Cenomanlan

1---

12-

~

11
B

...

-

MiddleTuronlan"""'"'

Upper Cenomanian-10-.~~~-----~

A

-;:-

c

Lower Cenomanlan toUpper Alblan (pars. )Upper Turonlan

1---

B
f--

A

Middle Cenomanlan
Lower Cenomanlan

9~
1---

Upper Alblan(pars.)

lay within the Neocardioceras juddii Ammonite Biozone(Upper Cenomanian). The author found the event in the
Plenus Marls/Metoicoceras geslinianum Ammonite Zone
(Upper Cenomanian) inS and NE England. At RockCanyon, near Pueblo, Colorado (the proposed ooundary
stratotype), Watkins ( 1985) apparently identified its FAD
in the Watinoceras devonense Ammonite Biozone (Lower

Turonian), whilst Bralower (1988, Figure 16) found it in the
Metoicoceras mosbyense Ammonite Biozone which lies
below the Sciponoceras gracile Ammonite Biozone (Upper
Cenomanian) (Cobbanetal., 1995). Therefore, theFADisplaced in the Upper Cenomanian.
The area around Cognac, Charente (W France) represents the Coniacian type area. Manivit ( 1971) studied
the type Coniacian at Cognac, and utilised the FADs ofMarthasterites furcatus (CC13) and Kamptnerius
magni.ficus to identify the stage here. Both species are now
known to occur stratigraphically below the base of thisstage. The Marthasterites furcatus event was found in the
top of the Coniacian Micraster cortestudinarium Echinoid
Zone, according to Manivit ( 1971 ). Sissingh ( 1977) also
examined the Coniacian of Cognac but did not findMarthasterites furcatus, whilst Robaszynski (1983) indicated that Marthasterites furcatus was found in the
Peroniceras tricarinatum Ammonite Zone of the Turonian
type area. Sissingh (1977) used the FAD of Micula
staurophora to define the Upper Coniacian (CC14).
Birkelund et al. (1984) stated that the FAD of
Marthasterites furcatus was a "world-wide marker.. .whichis generally used by n~nnofossil specialists as thebasal... [event] ... oftheConiacian" (p.l3-14), although Bailey et al. (1984), in the same volume, indicated that theevent lay in the Subprionocyclus neptuni Ammonite
Biozone (Upper Turonian) in the UK and Germany. The
author has found Marthasterites furcatus to be virtually
useless as a biostratigraphic indicator in many geographical areas: its geographical and stratigraphical distributions
are patchy at best outside of the Tethyan Realm, such that
one can never be sure of identifying its true FAD. In S
England, the author found Marthasterites furcatus in the
Stemotaxis planus Echinoid Biozone ('Upper' Turonian),whilst Crux (1982) found it below this in the Terebratulina
lata Brachiopod Biozone ('Mid' or 'Upper' Turonian). In
the Salzgitter-Salder section (the proposed boundary
stratotype), Marthasterites furcatus is present at least frombelow Didymotis Event I (Bed 38b, Upper Turonian; Bumettin prep., d); the FAD ofLithastrinus septenariuswas foundfrom Bed 42a, below the proposed boundary. This latter
event was used by Perch-Nielsen (1979, etc.) to subdivide
CC13.
The Santonian type area is around Saintes, Charente(W France). The nannofloras of Cognac andChateaubemard (SE of Saintes) were studied by Manivit(1971 ). She assigned one zone to the stage, using the FADs
of Kamptnerius magnificus and Broinsonia parca parca
to define it. Th~ former event is in the Turonian, the latterin the Campant<.& Sissingh (1977) investigated theSantonian of Saintes and of Javresac and Ste. LaurentLouzac (SE ofSaintes). Micula staurophora (CC14) waspresent, and he also used the FADs of Reinhardtites
anthophorus (CC.l5) and Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii(CC16) to define two nannofossil zones within the stage,
although there appeared to be a reversed succession in thetype area (rare Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii were believed tooccur below the stated FAD datum, although these could
possibly be ascribed to either Lucianorhabdus quadrifidus
or Acuturris scotus). Verbeek ( 1977) produced a nannofloral
distribution chart from the type section, which included==========================26==========================

J.A. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .., p. 23 - 32.

Micula staurophora. He used the FADs of Placozygus
fibuliformis and Broinsonia parca parca to characterise
the 'Middle? to Upper' Santonian in the type area.
Reinhardtites anthophorus appears to evolve from
Zeugrhabdotus sisyphus (= Z. scutula), or similar forms,
and thus its FAD may vary between authors with differing
concepts of the taxon. It may, therefore, seem to first occur
before the FAD ofMicula staurophora due to this reason,or one (both?) of these markers may be diachronous. However, Reinhardtites anthophorus often first occurs in association with Lithastrinus grillii, as noted by PerchNielsen (1979), an event which can be used as confirmationof, or possibly a substitute for, the datum. She also reported the coincident FAD of Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii
with the LAD of Lithastrinus septenarius. However, thelatter event has been found to predate the FAD of
Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii in many locations.
Birkelund et al. (1984) made no mention of
nannofossils in relation to the Santonian/Campanianboundary.
The Campanian type area lies around the Grande
and Petite Champagne, northern Aquitaine (SW France).
Manivit (1971) investigated sections at Ste.-L'Heurine,
Gente and Archiac (S of Cognac), Talmont (on the northbank of the Gironde) and Aubeterre (S of Angouleme). She
used the FADs of Arkhangelskiella specil/ata,
Ceratolithoides aculeus (CC20) and Lithraphidites
quadratus (CC25B, Maastrichtian) to subdivide the stage.
She correlated the former two events with the Actinocamax
quadratus/Placenticeras bidorsatum and Hoplitoplacenticeras vari/Belemnitella mucronata Macrofossil Zones,
respectively.
Sissingh ( 1977) originally placed the Santonian/Campanian boundary at the first regular occurrence ofCalculites obscurus (at the base of CC17) but revised this(Sissingh, 1978), placing the base of CC 17 in the 'Upper'
Santonian based on PF associations, remarking, however,that the Santonian/Campanian boundary still lay within
CC17. He examined material from Gimeux (SW of Cognac),
Gente, along the north bank of the Gironde from Royan toSte.-Seurin-d'Uzet, Montmoreau (S of Angouleme) and
Brossac (SW of Angouleme). Of the seven zones he erected
for the Campanian, six were recognised in the type area.
These were based on the FADs of regular Calcu/ites
obscurus, Broinsonia parca parca (CC18), Ceratolithoides aculeus (CC20), Uniplanarius sissinghii (CC21).
Uniplanarius trifidus (CC22A-CC23B; the occurrence of

which was sporadic, a finding duplicated by Verbeek's( 1977) study of a section at Aubeterre, S of Angouleme),
and the LADs of Reinhardtites anthophorus (CC22C)
and Tranolithus orionatus (CC23B). The majority of these
events are Tethyan and cannot be recognised in high-latitude areas. A large number of sections in the type area
were sampled by Lambert (1980), including those between
Royan and Beaumont (on the north bank of the Gironde)
and between Saintes (to the NW) and Aubeterre (to theSE). He used the FADs of B. parca parca, C. aculeus,

Prediscosphaera stoveri, Lithraphidites praequadratus
and "Tetralithus sp." to divide the stage.
The FAD of Broinsonia parca parca, a virtuallycosmopolitan event, was noted by Birkelund et al. (1984)

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

to be "used by coccolith specialists for definition of the[Santonian/ Campanian] boundary" (p.l6), although thetaxon's FAD is actually well within the traditionally defmed Campanian (Bailey et al., 1984; Gale et al. , in press,b). Birkelund et al. (1984) also made comment that "thisspecies is known to be diachronous" (p.l6). This, however,is relative to macrofossil datums which themselves may bediachronous! One problem noted at various locations by
the author, however, and forming the crux of a brief presentation by Sylvia Gardin at the Working Group session,
wastheproblemofcorrectidentificationofB.parcaparca
within the B. parca plexus. Broinsonia parca parca belongs to an evolutionary lineage (Broinsonia parca

expansa-Broinsonia parca parca-Broinsonia parca
constricta) which involves the gradual reduction in dimensions of the central area plate of the coccolith. In order
to use this event correctly, a precise definition of the central area dimensions of the taxon must be determined inorder to obtain the correct FAD. A biometric study on
numerous sections containing the plexus is currently being
carried out at UCL, which will form a basis for comparison
with other studies.
The Campanian stage contains the endemic acmefor Mesozoic nannofossils, at which time widespread correlation potential was reduced but diversity reached a peak
(Bown et al., 1991, 1992). Recent works have begun toovercometheintercorrelativeproblernsassociatedwiththis
interval (e.g. Burnen, 1990; Watkins et al., in press; Burnen,
in prep., b : the latter work in particular has managed to
identify tie-lines between Indian Ocean sites atpalaeolatitudes ranging from 18. 9°S to 62. 9°S for this interval).
Sissingh (1977) introduced the FAD of Reinhardtiles levis as a subzonal marker event in the uppermost
Campanian. This taxon evolved from Reinhardtites
anthophorus by gradual closing of the central area, suchthat Rei(lhardtites levis possesses "very small or completely
sealed openings" (p.47), transitional morphologies being
represented through the Campanian. Unfortunately, these
openings can also be closed by calcitic overgrowth. Additionally, Reinhardtites levis has been found to havediachronous FADs and LADs (Burnen, in prep., a), its FAD
apparently trangressing from the Lower to the Upper
Campanian, from certain low to high latitudes.
The type section for the Maastrichtian is in the
ENCI Quarry, near Maastricht, Limburg (SE Netherlands).
The lithostratigraphy of both this quarry and theHalembaye Quarry (near Vise, Liege, E Belgium) has been
published by various authors (e.g. Felder et al., 1980; Blesset al., 1987). Sedimentation in this area was repeatedly interrupted, giving rise to numerous hardgrounds which facilitated lithological subdivision.
Bramlette & Martini (1964) examined three samples
from the 'Upper' Maastrichtian of the ENCI Quarry but did
not attempt to identify zonal indicators. Manivit ( 1971) was
the first to apply nannofossil zones to this section, using
the FADs of Lithraphidites quadratus (CC25B) and
Nephrolithus frequens (CC26). She then attempted a correlation of these zones with ammonite zones, resulting intheemplacementoftheLithrapqiditesqW,ldratus NF Zone
in the Bostrychoceras polyplocum Ammonite Zone (Up-==========================27==========================

0""...::s

~

...,0
..z

FIGURE 2: SUMMARY OF WORKING-GROUP PROPOSALS FOR UPPER CRETACEOUS
STAGE AND SUBSTAGE BOUNDARY EVENTS AND STRATOTYPES.,~

arrows refer to (sub-)stage boundaries

[
~~
<i

!!!j

3"i

~<'i~

g
~

BOUNDARY STRATOTYPE

i

w :=.

BOUNDARY EVENT

~ ~H

...I

< ~

w

~ '.:8
<l

0

....<

cC !.,..1i

65.0±0.1Ma ss.4.:1P.1Ma

AMM • ammonitew

0:;:, 'i:' .g

11)

\..r

PAL

BEL • belemni1eCAIN. crinoid
INOC • inoceramid bivalve~:g

NF. nannofos!il:J
LA.

AUXILLIARY EVENT(S)PF • planktonic forarrinifer

11)... ~Q LA.
ti:z

FAO Pachyd!ICuo 110<Jborgicus (AMM)

fOIIIIII.

LA.

LAD ~~ t. .lvdnaiuo (CAIN)

83.5.:1P.5Ma 83.5.:1P.5Ma r"

...

UP.
z
~
z f-- foil no doocioion, p<'*>ably FAD Unilcmus _,;.~;. (CAIN)
MI D.
decilion, efit• FAO Cordicfnlmvs cordlomti•~ f - - tllllll no(INOC) or LAD Ccrd_,mus un<N/otut (INOC)~
LR.

85.8;t0.5Ma 86.3;t0.5Ma r"

FAD Clfl<ioc»nmut un<N/otoplicatw (INOC )

z

<
0

~

UP.

f--

foil FAD lnocorwnu• (M"ffdac.,.,.vs) ou~IHhtus

0

89.1J±0.5Ma 88.7.:1P.5Ma ..

MID.

UP.

MID.

FA O Crwrmoctlnmu• ro&.mdirtul (INOC) of a~thort

93.5.:1P2Ma 93.3.:1P.2Ma

FAD W.Onoc.a• et.~..,,. (AMM)

lnoc"""""' picaJt group (INOC) (FR)~z f - - - foil FAD C<Jmi"'/toriCIIf85 inormo (AMM)w
98.fi.:IP.6Ma 98.5.:1P5Ma \...

MID.

0

LA.

ALB.

UP.

s..fe<d Hood, SuMex, UK (RMICW), IP-S CO·ord.

1'111111?corretpQ"lde to FAD Goniotwthi•
ptWWOotfolco (B EL)~ ccnespooda to FAD St.nsoina
gfWlula ta~nuloil(ECH)

llllllll ccrrelpOfldl to flood offilii no Oedlion, either 10 Mile CrtH!Ik, Texa1 {AG) a
S..f0<d Head, Su ..e,, UK (CW)jOIIIII

FAD Rotalipora glaborroncanoidoo (PF)no decision, either Dalla•, Texaa (AG) or S Engl&'ld(CW)

r-- Sal1gitter-Salder <Aiarry, LDMM S.xony, N Germany, j,..

!"' Colorado, b..., of Bed 120 n Br;dge Crool< Memb«,
Greemom Limestone F01mation

Helvetogloboivncrma helv•fjca(PF)5 baN o f - 86, 50an above
FAD of J.lyliloidos hottni (INOC)

ccrresponda to FAD kloc.wramu•~o~~~~•d>loendorli (I~) & FAD
Rotalipora nod>o/i (PF)~Prol. Joke M. Hancock, Dept. ofGeology, Imperio! College of~

Science a T4Ktln ckgy, Prince~

Conoort Rood, Loncion SW7 2BP,
UK

~

z

~

Uniwuided del Plis Vuco,
Fac:t.~ltad de Cienciu, E.straligrallay Paloontologla, Apartado 6« , E-

0'
~;;;

48080, Bibao, Span~
Q.

eJCpanded nquenoe , no ammOflitea but lbundantother fossils, euy ace ... to Vef~caUy-bedded lbatll:
Wood fit al. , 1984; Burnettin prep., d ; 8\.I'TleletaJ.
in prep., a; Kenne<tv. 1995b; N-ii {in prea).

Dr. Erle G. Kouflmann, Oept ofGeolo<j;c.l Scioocea, Univortity ofColorado, Boulder. Colorado 803090250, USAf...
~'Nitlin bate of Bed 45cof,uttora(IN<X)& ~ no decision, INC>C WG to recommend tb'atotype (I<·AT)
Did)rno6t Flood EvOfll II (INOC)
Rock Canyon Anticine secbon, W of Puet:Ao ,r.

~

Oazagutta Oua.rry , Navwra, Spain (Ml)hwm~

CotTospondo lo FAD

10

Dr. t.lorcoo A. Lamolda,
Ken"1edy' et al. in pre85 .

fOIIIIIapproximatea FAD Sigllia
cwpahic• (PF).oo:-1411 Gale et 8 . in pr ... , b ; G•• «Ill. in prep., b.

filii no decision (AG)filii no decision, ~er 10 Mile CJMk, Texas (AGIEK)Of ~ Gale •t Ill. n prep., a; Kemed,t, 1995c.

lnocfllllmvs waJ~nsiszUP.
no decition, either FAD Calycoc.,., gv...,.,geri (AMM)~z f--- foil '" FADAAD Ac..thocrns jvkotlbrownoi (AMM) or FAD<

filii no dec:ilion, either WaJCahachie, TeJC.. (AG/JH) Of
filii no decilion {AG)no d&c:iaion, pc~y INOC eYent (WG of INOC waXers
to 'eecwnmend datum)~ f - - f4l FAD Coliv>Mc'"'• woolgai (AMM )~LA.

al. , I 992; Komody & Ha-> cock, 1!195; Schlwlt.ld 5
Schulz (Co-ado) ot Ill. n p< ....

a

(Broiosoniapwc• linee.ge),
34N!33R magnetottratigrephic
bOJndary under irrvee~ationLA.

< f - - r.
z

z

r-

grCXJp (INOC)~ f - - jolll FAD Volvic.,.,ut koeneni (INOC)abidonaflJm (AMM). Unko wilh PF(Diconnolle •"JJI''•Iric•), NF-

decisions w;y appear in theconference vaume bf summer,
1996

•t•.,

i!"IHI'~on of nh stage (?Oordogni.-.) contemplated at:.... top of Camp. due to long dJration of Camp.
apparendy c:omplellt Camp . atrat>type. Bum•t. fge();
Bu rnett i't prtp ., e; Jagt et al. in pre..; Kemect,< 11t

c::cmpetible with FAO Pfac.ntc.-as

full reports by the chairmen on
tho 81\Jaoels Worl<ing Grouppoor preserva~on of NFs &. PFs makee flis a pocx
statotype choice, howev&r, conetalona can be madevia Zumaya (NE Spain} & Bidart (SW Franco). Burnen Dr. Gi!os S. Odin, Depl ~ie
in prep., e; Burnett et al. , 1992a, 1992b, 1992c;&edmentaire, Uriwrsftit Pierre etHancock et al. , 1993; Jagt •I Ill. , I 992; Kemody ot Marie Curie, 4 pl•oe ..AJMieu, C•eal., 1995; Mc.Arth\.1'
1992; Robaszynski .tal. , 11 9A, F-75252, Paio c.d<o< 05,
1965; SchOnfeid& llumott, 1991.
Fr.,cefllllll Terci• Ouarry, SE Frtwlce, @117m (in Bed N)

UP.

a. ?MID. \1111111 poe.eibiity of ~1-d.Jra,on, 3-fold .ubdviaion< f--0carespondl to FAO &MtHTtnfllfa

IW!coo/a"' (BEL)

:I!

00

COMMENTS& REFERENCES CONTAIN ING
NANNOFOSSIL DATA"'llfl no decision, proba!Xy Zumaya, NE Spainz<< f - - ~ no fofmal propo.ala, inveltig,~tton l..llderway ilto

N

:>:1

"'"'
"'~
;::r

WORKING-GROUPCHAIRMAN

it-.!.~ UP.
~~ f--- ~ no decition, probably AMM eV«''t

71.3.:1P.SMa 71.3;t0.5Ma r"

0::s

AG ·Anriy Gale
JH • Jake Hancocl<
EK • Erkt KeuffmannML • Mareo11 Lamolda
AM. RC<)' Mor1imore
FR • Francis Robaszynski
IP-s • lsabella Premoi.Silva
K-AT. Karl-Armn Tn5gor
CW. Chrio Wood

Rock Canyoo An~cline aection, W of Pueblo,
Colorado, b... ol Bed 86 in BCM, GLF}.-

no decision, probably S France (FR)~=~: !~~a~::~:C:.~~.·~~· ~·?Boulc.rmais, N France (AG)

1'41 Mont Fhou, near Ros.ana, Haute•Alpea, SE Franc::e(')

no ccrtdensatioo , lie& in Milankovitd'l cydee
carelatable
We.tem lntwior, radiometriealy·
dated yja a•ociated bentonitet.: Bfak:Jwet, 1988;

av•

Jarvio et al. , I 988; Robaozynol<i , I 983; Floboozyntki

Prof. Pelor Bonglo<ln, Gedogiacll-"gPaliootcMogi.chM lnatitut, lm
Neu.,heim., Feld 23-4, 0-69120"'~

Hoidolborg, Gorm<Wly

et a/. , 1982; Watkins, 1985.
expanded Hq\.1«'108 containi'lg weU-prnerved to..il&,& NF•with both Boreal & Tethyan Mmenta. A
tecondary reference section in the Techyan Realm
waa propoeed at Kala at Sen.-., N of El Kef, T ~X~ ilia by
Roba6zy~ and his group but it is !ikefy lhatltia
aequenoe ia eonden.ed in part. Gale fit el. i1 ,P(eN,

I'll•: Kor1nedy, I~; Robas.zynol<i ota/., 1993,1994.

Prol. Dr . Karl-Arm in TrOger,
B«gakademie Fre4berg, lnftitJt M

Goologie, Fokcl,.t 3, Bernhard-YOO Cotta StraBe 2, 09596 Frefbefg,
Sadls., Germany

I

8"

"
~
c;·
?'

;:s

....N
....
!'->

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .., p. 23 - 32.

per Campanian) and the Nephrolithus frequens NF Zone in
the Pachydiscus neubergicus/Cidaris faujasi Macrofossil
Zone (Lower Maastrichtian). Sissingh (1977) also studiedmaterial from the type section. He utilised the LADs of
Tranolithus orionatus (CC23B) and Reinhardtites /evis(CC24), and the FAD ofNephrolithus frequens (CC26) todefine his zones for the Maastrichtian. The poor preservation of the type material was commented on by Verbeek(1977), who used the FADs of Litl;zraphidites quadratus
and Micu/a murus (CC25C) to define zones in this interval. Sissingh' s ( 1977) material was reinvestigated by van
Heck ( 1979), who did not attempt to reapply a nannofossil
zonation. Cepek & Moorkens ( 1979) also studied the ENCI
Quarry stratotype, using Lithraphidites quadratus andNephro/ithus frequens as marker events. It is now known
that the FAD of Nephrolithus frequens is highly
diachronous and should be used with caution.
Verbeek (1983) restudied material from the ENCI
Quarry, this time using Nephrolithus frequens as a zonal
marker. A multidisciplinary study, undertaken by
Robaszynski et al. ( 1Sl85);included investigation of material from the Halembaye Quarry, in the type area. Manivit(in Robaszynski et al., 1985) noted the largely Boreal influence on the nannofloras, and the good preservation, with
only weak diagenetic effects on the specimens, of the material. She believed that the LADs of Broinsona parca
constricta, Eiffe//ithus eximius and Reinhardtites
anthophorus (used to indicate an approximation to theCampanian/Maastrichtian stage boundary in Tethyanareas), rather than being represented due to reworking,could here be of Upper Maastrichtian age, i.e. their LADs
were diachronous. However, in the presence of so many
hardgrounds, reworking of these events into younger
sediments cannot be ruled out. Manivit (op. cit.) used theFADs of Lithraphidites praequadratus and Lithraphidites quadratus to subdivide the interval.
Birkelund eta/. (1984)commented that the LAD ofthe "widespread" (p.l7) Uniplanarius trifidus "had beenused to define the base of the Maastrichtian" but that theevent was actually well within the Lower Maastrichtian.
This event (and nannofossil) is Tethyan-restricted.
In summary, Figure 1 shows the most commonlyused biozonation scheme (after Sissirlgh and Perch-Nielsen,
op. cit.) with Sissingh's stage approximations redefinedaccording to the proposals put forward by the Brussels
Working Groups and the author's data.
Nannofossil biozones are generally supposed tohave been devised utilising easily-recognisable, frequentlyoccurring members of evolutionary lirleages, with subzones
supposedly based on taxa which do not necessarily fulfill
these requirements. In these respects, the Sissingh/PerchNielsen scheme has been generally acceptable and useful.
It seems, however, that the only way forward irl nannofossil
biozonation and correlation, as we learn more aboutpalaeobiogeographical and palaeoecological constraints
on spatial distributions and abundances of taxa; and as we
become more aware of stage boundaries, is by ongoingrefinement of their subzones. In order to achieve this, wemust be prepared to start to utilise and incorporate anything that appears to have a reliable FAD or LAD, whether
it is abundant or not, or biogeographically restricted or

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

not, but which can be correlated elsewhere, either directlyor via sequences which contain mixed (e.g. high- and lowlatitude) nannofloral elements derived from adjacentpalaeobiogeographical provinces. This approach has been
adopted by the author, and the proposed new zonation
scheme (Burnett irl prep., a) will incorporate this feature.

Upper Cretaceous (Sub-)Stage boundary proposals
and nannofossils
The definition of Cretaceous stage boundaries is a momentous event! So far, all definitions have been unofficial. Oncethe proposals for GSSPs have been ratified, we will beobliged to redefine our nannofossil zonations with respect
to these boundaries, since the GSSP "must be used without
modification... [although an author may]. .. express his personal opinion, but the author will be obliged to make clear
what is the general consensus compared to his personalviews" (Remane et al., 1995, p.6).
Figure 2 contains a summary of the proposals forUpper Cretaceous st~;ge-boundary stratotypes and marker
events put forward by the Brussels Working Groups. The
formal proposals will be published by summer 19% in theconference volume of the Brussels meeting. The candidates for event and stratotype had to fill certain requirements in order to qualify: the correlation potential of the
GSSP had to be demonstrated; the event and stratotype
had to respect historical precedents where possible; theboundary event had to lie within a "bundle of successive
events" (Remane et al., 1995, p.5); the boundary sections
had to be well-exposed, easily accessible, unaltered, complete, expanded, with one facies crossing the boundary,and not tectonically disturbed; they had to contain a variety of well-preserved fossil groups, which showed no ecologically-related FADs or LADs across the boundary; theboundary event had to preferably be a FAD; data concerning magnetostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy and radiometric dates were expected to be available also. Despite
the requirements, it was realistically observed that 'the perfect stratotype' was unlikely to exist for every boundary,and that it may not have been possible to fulfill every criterion.
Figure 3 summarises the nannofossil data irl relation
to the proposed boundaries, using the Sissingh/PerchNielsen scheme as a framework but incorporating theauthor's original work, and thus introducing some novel
events (the utility of these and a number of other events iscurrently being assessed further before a new zonation
scheme is published). Gaps in the data are currently being
filled, and all of the nannofossil data is being prepared for
publication.
The nannofossil data and confinnatory observations
come from numerous sections, includirlg: Be1giwn, Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, France, Germany,
The Netherlands, the North Sea, Poland, Russia, South
Africa, Spain, the USA (Arizona, Colorado, Texas, the eastem sea-board), and the Indian, North and South Atlantic,
and Pacific Oceans.
Nannofossil taxon names referred to herein are those
irl current usage and authors can be found in Perch-Nielsen(1985).

=========================29==========================

Journal ofNannoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.

FIGURE 3: POTENTIALLY USEFUL NANNOFOSSIL EVENTS AROUNDUPPER CRETACEOUS (SUB-)STAGE BOUNDARIES- STATE OF THE ART'BASED ON STAGE -BOUNDARY WORKING GROUP PROPOSALS, BRUSSELS, 1995

.
.
i
t;

w

z

w
0

ooC

2

:::;)

NFEVENTSUlLAD R. -n18nus
FADLHnhmArius
FAD Z. bbarforatus
FAD Matthast.nll>s

a:
w

Q.
Q.
:::;)

z

1--

~

:S ~

~
:::l :i
1--

a:

~

~

.,

..r

Q.
Q.

:::l

~

z

saJ a:!w
...J

<

!>.
!>.

::::>

?

? may shilt when boundary
decision reached
FAD raaular C. obscurus
FAD A ""'Uiaris
FADAminimus

ooe m
a:
w

CC13A

Q.
Q.

:::l
C\1

8

~

FAD R. globotrunc-ldH
FAD C. anfractus
LAD All<h~nne/si<ioRa ? so.
FAD G. chiasta C. 11Tll1§cum
FAD Afl<hantw/skit/1/a ? so.
LAD H. albitlnse
FAOf= tum.s.iffg/H

2

1&.

z

- ~

?FAO u. SOC. . .

~

~

8

8

...J

a:
w
Q.
Q.

:::l

~

Ill

LAD L. seotl>nariuswz ...Jw:::l~

FAD V. koenenl-- ~FAO C. rotund«ua

aJ

C')

8

no decl•on?LAD 8. oarca nares?LAD L. nriHii
BOREAL0g LAD C. coronatvs ?H. turonicus

FAD P. MU'-'r!lcua

LAD H. buaonsis
LAD E. oximius
LAD R. anthoohorus
LAD B. dissimilis
LAD H. circumradiatus
LAD G. coronadvontis Z. biDorforatus
FAD R. /ovis
FAD L. oraoauadratus

<
c..
:1
<

~

~

LAD 8. "'"''" constricts 8. coronum
LAD A minimus A scotus~ ,___ ~
z
a:

a:

8

?LAD R. iflvs
LAD 8. mSDnum
LAD T. orionatus U. trifidusu?FAD M. stavrcohora

no declalon

,

Q.
Q.

8

~

...1

a:

V

:S 00
u

§- ~

aJ

g

i a:
~

LAD F. oblonaus
LAD Q. aartnori
FAD L an7Jii
FAD R. anlhootcrus?FAD P. fbuJitorms

s :i

8"'

<

- ~ FAD I. (11.) oubq_...,ua

~

8

Q.

Q
a: 1--

no declalon- ,___ ~ FAD C. undlllafo,.,.,.IU8
~

w

Q.

z :::l~~? may shift when boundary decision
reached
FAD M. nrinsii
FAD C. kamDIMriFAD N. friKJuenst
FAD M. murusLAD A octoradiata?FAD L auaaatus?LAD C. obscurust;a:?FAD L cavouxii~ :i

NFEVENTSt extremely transgressive

Cl Ul
mooC :::;)
Ul

Ill

w
z ...J
0

C}j

Cl

ill ~

CC17

0

FADW.d#110,.,_~~t; ii!

CC13B

~

-I! ,

NFEVENTSa:

FAD L. scut!ISFAD H. traiHic<.iatus
LAD W. britSMirJO 8. alricana0::
FAD C. k&nnodvi
FAD P. creta<»s s.s. G. nraoobfim•1m
FAD R. oianus
FAD G. theta
LADS. ni..bra

z

Cl Ul

FAD A octoradiata H. • ,.._,LAD S. IIChvlosus
FAD E. moratus

no declalon

w

ill ~

-

z w
:S 15 LAD C. komwdvi. G. nanum L. OJansz 0
FAD C. bian:ua~ :i
FAD C. , _ , .
~
w fu

z

w

0

FAD C. -/lglltl

FADQ~
LAD M. chia$1ius
LAD Cret. striatus
LADA abianus
FAD T. minim us

a:
w

f-

FAD L msiBiorm;.

1&.

FAD E. oximius
FAD K. m>~nni/icu.

0

...J

no dtclalon

FADZ~Mnse

0
0

1-

.

ill

w

0

...J

FAD H. bug~rurio

FAO T. c.U.taenli•
FAD M. quetomsriuo

TETHYANFAD U.lrili<V•
FAD U. liuinghi
FAD C. acvleu•

FAD N. colwmii
FAD 8. ""rea constricts C. wrb<Hikii
FAD 8. oarcaoarr:s?FAD 8 . maanum?FAD 0. camnaMnsis

,

....1

LAD M. teOitudln.rlua

w

z

2
la.
z

CC26B
CC26A
CC25C
CC25B

~
C\1

8
CC24
CC23B

~

8
~

8
aJ

~

8
~

~

g
,.....

8

CC9A

Ackrwwledgements

Cretaceous stage boundaries- Proposals. Bulletin ofthe Geo-

logical Society ofDenmark, 33(1/2): 3-20.
ThisresearchwasoriginallyfundedbytheNERC(GR/6767,
1988-1991) and a NERC/ODP Special Topic Fellowship Bless, M.J.M., Djaiz, R., Felder, P.J., Jagt, J.W.M. & Roebroeks,W. 1987: "Session extraordinaire" of the two Belgian Geo(1991-1993). The Royal Society and the Department oflogical Societies on the Late Cretaceous and Quaternary in the
Geological Sciences, UCL facilitated my attendance at the .
Liege-Maastricht-Heerlen area, 12-14 June, 1987. Bulletin deStage Boundaries conference in Brussels, where a sumla Societe beige de la Geologie, 96(4): 309-323.
mary of this research was presented as a poster. I am grateBown,P.R.,
Burnett,J.A. & Gallagher, L.T. 1991: Critical events
ful to both of these institutions. I would, however, espeintheevolutionary
history of calcareous nannoplankton. Hiscially like to thank those people who have allowed (andtorical
Biology,5:279-290.
helped) me to carry on with this research despite a recent.
Bown, P.R., Bumett, J.A. & Gallagher, L.T. 1992: Calcareous
crippling lack of funding. They know who they are.
REFERENCES

Bailey, H.W., Gale, A.S., Mortimore, R.N.,Swiecicki, A.
& Wood, C.J. 1984: Biostratigraphical criteria for therecognition of the Coniacian to Maastrichtian stage
boundaries in the chalk of north-west Europe, with particular reference to southern England. Bulletin ofthe Geological Society ofDenmark, 33(1/2): 31-40.
Birkelund, T., Hancock, J.M ., Hart, M.B., Rawson, P .F.,
Remane, J., Robaszynski, F., Schmid, F. & Surlyk, F. 1984:

nannoplankton evolution. Memorie. di Scienze Geologiche.
Memorie degli Instituti di Geo/ogia e Mineralogiadeli'Universita ili Padova, 43: 1-17.
Bralower, T.J. 1988: Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy andassemblages of the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary interval:
implications for the origin and timing of oceanic anoxia.
Paleoceangraphy, 3(3): 275-316.
Bramlette, M.N. & Martini, E. 1964: The great change in calcareous nannoplankton fossils between the Maestrichtian andDanian.Micropdleontology, 10(3): 291-322.

========================~30========================~

JA. Burnett: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.
Burnett, J. A. 1990: New nannofossil zonation scheme for the
Boreal Campanian. International Nannoplankton Association Newsletter, 12(3): 67-70.
Burnett, J.A. In prep., a: Upper Cretaceous. In: P.R. Bown (Ed.).
New Stratigraphical Atlas of Calcareous Nannofossils.
British Micropalaeontological Society.
Burnett, J.A. In prep., b: The Indian Ocean: an improved translatitudinal Late Cretaceous calcareous
nannofossil zonation1
scheme with implications for palaeobiogeography,
palaeoclimatology and palaeoceanography. (For submission
to Marine Micropalaeontology ).
Burnett, J.A. In prep., c: The Atlantic Ocean: trans-latitudinal
Late Cretaceous calcareous nannofossil zonal correlation andimplications for palaeobiogeography, palaeoclimatology andpalaeoceanography. (For submission to Cretaceous Research) ..
Burnett, J.A.ln prep., d: Note on the nannofloras ofthe SalzgitterSalder Quarry, Germany, and the Turonian/Coniacianboundary.
Burnett, J.A. In prep., e: Nannofloras from the Boreal Santonian
to Maastrichtian: northern England, northern Germany and
Poland.
Burnett, J.A., Ham ock, J.M. & Kennedy, W.J. In prep. (a) :Nannofossil and macrofossil biozonation of the Turonian toConiacian interval: a correlation between northern Germany,
the Czech Republic and England.
Burnett, J.A., Hancock, J.M., Kennedy, W.J. & Lord, A.R.
1992(a):. Macrofossil, planktonic foraminiferal andnannofossil zonJtion at the Campanian/Maastrichtianboundary. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 27(3): 157-172.
Burnett, J., Kennedy, J., Hancock, J. & Lord, A. 1992 (b): Towards an integration ofbiostratigraphical zonation schemes at
the Campanian/Maastrichtian boundary. Geologic Africaine:
Colloques de Geologic de Libreville, 6-8 Mai 1991, Recueil
des Communications. Bulletin des Centres de Recherches
Exploration-Production E!f-Aquitaine, Mimoire 13: 189-194.
Burnett, J.A., Kennedy, W.J. & Ward, P.D. 1992 (c):Maastrichtian nannofossil biostratigraphy in the Biscay region (south-western France, northern Spain). Newsletters on
Stratigraphy, 26(213): 145-155.
Cepek, P. & Moorkens, T. 1979: Cretaceousffertiary boundary
and Maastrichtian-Danian biostratigraphy (coccoliths andforaminifera) in the Maastrichtian type area. In: W.K.
Christensen & T. Birkelund (Eds). Cretaceous-Tertiary
Boundary Events, Symposium: II. Proceedings. Universityof Copenhagen, pp.l37-142.
Cobban, W.A., Gale, AS. & Kennedy, W.J. 1995: Pueblo, Colorado: a candidate boundary stratotype for the base of theTuronian stage. Unpublished discussion document for theTuronian Working Group.
Crux, J.A. 1982: Upper Cretaceous (Cenomanian to Campanian)calcareous nannofossils. In: A.R. Lord (Ed.). A StratigraphicalIndex of Calcareous Nannofossils: 81-135. British
Micropalaeontological Society Series/EIIis Horwood Limited,
Chichester.
Felder, P.J., Felder, W.M. & Bromley, R.G. 1980: The type areaof the Maastrichtian stage. In: T. Birkelund & R.G. Bromley(Eds). The Upper Cretaceous and Danian of NW Europe:
guide to excursion A -69. 26th Intemationa/Geo/ogical Congress, Paris, 7-17 July, 1980: 118-137.
Gale, A.S., Hancock, J.M., Kennedy, W.J., Burnett, J.A. &McLeod, N. In prep. (a): Recognition of the Coniacian/Santonian boundary in Texas using integrated biostratigraphy.
Gale, A.S. et al. In prep. (b). Recognition of the Santonian/Campanian boundary in Texas using integrated biostratigraphy.
Gale, A.S., Kennedy, W.J., Burnett, J.A., Caron, M. &Marshall, J.D. In press (a): The Late Albian to Early

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

Cenomanian succession near Rosans (Drome, SE France); an
integrated study (ammonites, inoceramids, planktonic
foraminifera, nannofossils, oxygen and carbon isotopes). Cretaceous Research. (Accepted).
Gale, A.S., Montgomery, P., Kennedy, W.J., Hancock, J.M.,
Burnett, J.A. & McArthur, J.M. In press (b): Definition andglobal correlation of the Santonian-Campanian boundary.
Terra Nova. (Accepted).
Gradstein, F.M., Agterberg, F.P., Ogg, J.G., Hardenbol, J., Veen,
P. van, Thierry, J. & Huang, Z. 1994: A Mesozoic time scale.
Journal ofGeophysical Research, 99(B12): 24 051-24 074.
Hancock, J.M., Peake, N.B., Burnett, J., Dhondt,A.V., Kennedy,
W.J. & Stokes, R.B. 1993: High Cretaceous biostratigraphy
at Tercis, south-west France. Bulletin de /'Institute Royal desSciences Naturelles de Belgique. Sciences de la Terre, 63:
133-148.
Heck, S.E. van 1979: Nannoplankton contents of the TypeMaastrichtian. International Nannoplanklton Association
Newsletter, 1(1): N5-N6.
Jagt, J.W.M., Burnett, J. & Kennedy, W.J. In press. Upper
Campanian ammonites and nannofossils from South Limburg,
The Netherlands. Mededelingen van's Rijks Geologischen
Dienst Leiden. (Accepted).
Jagt, J.W.M., Kennedy, W.J. & Burnett, J. 1992.:
Acanthoscaphites tridens (Kner, 1848) (Ammonoidea) fromthe Vijlen Member (Lower Maastrichtian) ofGulpen, Limburg,
The Netherlands. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 71: 15-21.
Jarvis, I., Carson, G.A., Cooper, M.K.E., Hart, M.B., Leary,
P.N., Tocher, B.A., Home, D. & Rosenfeld, A. 1988:
Micro fossil Assemblages and the Cenomanian-Turonian (lateCretaceous) Oceanic Anoxic Event. Cretaceous Research, 9:3-103.
Kennedy, W .J. 1995a: Ammonite definitions of Cenomanian
Substages. Unpublished discussion document for the
Cenomanian Working Group.
Kennedy, W.J. 1995b: Defining the base of the Coniacian and its
substages. Unpublished discussion document for the Coniacian
Working Group.
Kennedy, W.J. 1995c: Defining the base ofthe Santonian and its
substages using macrofossils. Unpublished discussion document for the Santonian Working Group.
Kennedy, W.J., Burnett, J.A., Christensen, W.K., Dhondt, A. V.
& Jagt, J.W.M. In press: Santonian macrofauna andnannofossils from northeast BeJgium. Bulletin de /'InstituteRoyal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Sciences de la
Terre, 65. (Accepted).
Kennedy, W.J., Christensen, W .K. & Hancock, J.M. 1995:
Defining the base of the Maastrichtian and its substages. Unpublished discussion document for the Maastrichtian Working Group.
Kennedy, W.J. & Hancock, J.M. 1995: Macrofossil definitionsof the base of the Campanian and its substages. Unpublisheddiscussion document for the Campanian Working Group.
Kennedy, W.J., Hansotte, M., Bilotte, M. & Burnett, J. 1992:
Ammonites and nannofossils from the Campanian ofNalzen(Ariege, France). Geobios, 25(2): 263-278.
Lambert, B. 1980: Etude de la nannoflore calcaire du Campanien
Charentais. Cahiers de Micrqpa/eontologie, 3: 39-53.
Manivit, H. 1971: Nannofossiles calcaires du Cretace fran9ais(Aptien-Maestrichtien). Essai de Biozonation appuyee surles stratotypes. These, Universite de Paris.
Manivit, H., Perch-Nielsen, K., Prins, B. & Verbeek, J.W. 1977:
Mid Cretaceous calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy. Proceedings of the Konink/ijke Akademie van Wetenschappen
Amsterdam (Physical Sciences), B80: 169-181.
McArthur, J.M., Kennedy, W.J., Gale, A.S., Thirlwall, M.F.,
Chen, M., Burnett, J. & Hancock; J.M. 1992: Strontium isotope stratigraphy in the Late Cretaceous: intercontinental cor-

31======~================~

Journal of Nannoplanlcton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

JA. Burn~t: Nannofossils and Upper Cretaceous stage boundaries .. , p. 23 - 32.

relation of the Campanian/Maastrichtian boundary. Terra
Nova, 4: 385-393.
Naji, F. 1995: Calcareous nannoplankton biostratigraphy of
the Salzgitter-Salder Limestone Quarry, Lower Saxony, Germany. Journal ofNannoplankton Research, 17(2). Abstract.
Obradowich, J. 1993: A Cretaceous Time Scale. Geologica-l
Association ofCanada Special Paper, 39: 379-396.
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1979: Calcareous Nannofossils from theCretaceous between the North Sea and Mediterranean. Aspekteder Kreide Europas. JUGS Series a, No.6: 223-272.
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1983: Recognition of Cretaceous stage boundaries by means of calcareous nannofossils. In: T. Birkelund,
R. Bromley, W.K. Christensen, E. Hakansson & F. Surlyk(Eds). Symposioum on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries, Copenhagen, October 18-21, 1983, Abstracts: 152-156. University of Copenhagen.
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1985: Mesozoic calcareous nannofossils. In:
H.M. Bolli, J.B. Saunders & K. Perch-Nielsen (Eds). Plankton Stratigraphy: 329-426. Cambridge University Press.
Perch-Nielsen, K. 1986: Call for help. /NA Newsletter, 8(2): 6465.
Remane, J., Bassett, M.G., Cowie, J.W., Gohbandt, K .H. &Wand, N. with the cooperation of members ofiCS 1995:
Guidelines for the establishment of global chronostratigraphic
standards by ICS (revised). Unpublished discussion document.
Robaszynski, F. 1983 : Conclusions to the Colloquium on the
Turtonian stage: Integrated biostratigraphic charts and facies
maps (France and adjacent areas). Zitteliana, 10: 585-594.
Robaszynski, F. (Co-ord.), Alcayde, G., Amedro, F., Badillet,
G., Damotte, R., Foucher, J.-C., Jardine, S., Legoux, 0.,
Manivit, H ., Monciardini, C. & Sornay, J. 1982: Le Turoniende la region-type: Saumurois et Touraine. Stratigraphie, biozonations, sedimentologie. Bulletin des Centres de Recherches
Exploration-Production Elf-Aquitaine, 6(1 ): 119-225.
Robaszynski, F., Bless, M.J.M., Felder, P.J., Foucher, J.-C.,
Legoux, 0., Manivit, H ., Meessen, J.P.M.T. & Tuuk, L.A.
van der 1985: The Campanian-Maastrichtian boundary inthe chalky facies close to the type-Maastrichtian area. Bulletin des Centres de Recherches Exploration-Production E/fAquitaine, 9( 1): 1-113.
Robaszynski, F., Caron, M., Amedro, F., Dupuis, C., Hardenbol,
J., Gonz.ales-Donoso, J.M., Linares, D. & Gartner, S. 1994:
Le Cenomanien de la region de Kalaat Senan (Tunisie
Centrale). Revue de Pa/eobiologie, 12: 351-SOS.
Robaszynski, F., Hardenbol, J., Caron, M., Amedro, F., Dupuis,C., Gonzales-Donoso, J.M., Linares, D. & Gartner, S. 1993:
Sequence stratigraphy in a distal environment: the Cenornanianof the Kalaat Senan region (Central Tunisia). Bulletin desCentres de Recherches Exploration-Production E/f-Aquitaine,
17: 395-433.

ScMnfeld, J. & Burnett, J. 1991 : Biostratigraphical correlation of
the Campanian-Maastrichtian boundary: Liigerdorf-Hemmoor(northwestern Germany), DSDP Sites S48A, 549 and 551(eastern North Atlantic) with palaeobiogeographical andpalaeoceanographical implications. Geological Magazine,
128(5): 479-503.
Schonfeld, J. & Schulz, M.-G. (Co-ords), McArthur, J.M.,
Burnett, J., Gale, A, Hambach, U ., Hansen, H.J., Kennedy,
W.J., Rasmussen, K .L., Thirlwall, M.F. & Wray, D. In
press: New results on biostratigraphy, palaeomagnetism,
geochemistry and correlation from the standard section for
the Upper Cretaceous White Chalk of northern Germany(Ugerdorf-Kronsmoor-Hemmoor). Proceedings of the 4thInternational Cretaceous Symposium, Hamburg 1992.
Mitteilungen desGeologisch-Paliiontologischen /nstituts derUniversitiit Hamburg, Special Issue. (Accepted).
Sissingh, W. 1977: Biostratigraphy of Cretaceous calcareous
nannoplankton. Geologie enMijnbouw, 56(1): 37-65.
Sissingh, W. 1978 : Microfossil biostratigraphy and stagestratotypes ofthe Cretaceous. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 57(3):433-440.
Thierstein, H.R. I 976: Mesozoic calcareous nannoplankton
biostratigraphy of marine sediments. Marine Micropaleontology, 1: 325-362.
Verbeek, J.W. 1976: Upper Cretaceous calcareous nannoplankton
from Ballon and Theligny in the type area ofthe Cenomanianstage (Sarthe, France). Proceedings of the Koninklijke
Nederlandse Akademie van Weienschappen, B79: 69-82.
Verbeek, J.W. 1977: Calcareous nannoplankton biostratigraphyof Middle and Upper Cretaceous deposits in Tunisia, southern Spain and France. Utrecht Micropaleontological Bulletins, 16: 157pp.
Verbeek, J .W. 1983: The calcareous nannofossils from theCampanian and Maastrichtian rocks of southern Limburg (TheNetherlands) and the adjacent Belgian area. /n: T. Birkelund,
R. Bromley, W.K. Christensen, E. Hakansson & F. Surlyk(Eds). Abstracts- Symposium on Cretaceous Stage Boundaries, Copenhagen, October 18-21, 1983. University of Copenhagen, pp.l97-200.
Watkins, D.K. 1985: Biostratigraphy and paleoecology of calcareous nannofossils in the Greenhorn marine cycle. Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Guidebook, 4:
151-156.
Watkins, D.K., Wise, S.W., Pospichal, J.J. & Crux, J. In press:
Upper Cretaceous calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy of
the Southern Ocean. Proceedings of the British Micropalaeontological Society ODP Meeting, 1994.
Wood, C.J., Ernst, G. & Rasemann, G. 1984: The TuronianConiacian stage boundary in Lower Saxony (Germany) andadjacent areas: the Salzgitter-Salder Quarry as a proposedinternational standard section. Bulletin ofthe Geological Society ofDenmark, 33(1/2): 225-238.

=========================32==========================

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND TAXA OF CALCAREOUS NANNOPLANKTON -26
Compiled by Wil/iam G. Siesser
A5193

AKSU,A.E., YASAR,D.,& MUDIE,P.J.
Pa1eoclimatic and paleoceanographic conditions leading to development of sapropel
layer S 1 in the Aegean Sea.
• Paleogeogr., Palaeoclimatol. , Palaeoecol., 116: 71-10.1 .

1995

Ecol.
QUAT.
Mediterr.

A5194

BEIERSDORF, H., BICKERT, T., CEPEK, P., FENNER, J., PETERSEN, N.,
SCHONFELD, J ., WEISS, W., WON, M.-Z.
High-resolution stratigraphy and the response of biota to late Cenozoic environmental
changes in the central equatorial Pacific Ocean (Manihiki Plateau).
• Mar. Geol., 125(1-2): 29-59.

1995(Strat.);(Syst.)QUAT .;TERT.U.
Pacific C.

A5195

BELLANCA,A., DISTEFANO, P.,& NERI,R.
Sedimentology and isotope geochemistry of Carnian deep-water marlllimestone deposits
from the Sicani Mountains, Sicily: environmental implications and evidence for aplanktonic source of lime mud.
• Palaeogeogr. , Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., 114: 111-129.

1995

Ecol.
TRI.U.
Europe W.

A5196

BUSSON, G., NORL, D., CORNEE, A., AMEDRO, F., MANGIN,A.M., & COLLETE, C.
The dawn of the chalk.
+Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 166(2): 193-206.
(In French with English abstract)

1995

Strat;Ecol.
CRET.
Europe W.

A5197

CHEPSTOW-LUSTY, A. & CHAPMAN, M.
The decline and extinction of upper Pliocene discoasters: a comparison of two equatorial
Pacific Ocean records.
• J. Nannoplankton Res., 17(1): 15-19.

1995(Strat.);Ecol.
TERT.U.
Pacific C.

A5198

COBIANCHI, M. & VILLA, G.
Biostratigraphy of the Calpionella Limestone and Palombini Shales in the Statale section(Val Graveglia, Ligurian Appennine).
• Atti Tic. Sci. Terra., 35: 199-21 1.
(In Italian with English abstract)

1992

Strat.;(Syst.)
CRET.L;
JURA.U.

A5199

CONTI, M. H., THOMPSON, A., EGLINTON, G., & GREEN, J.C.
Lipid biomarker diversity in the coccolithophorid Emiliania huxleyi (Prymnesiophyceae)
and the related species Gephyrocapsa oceanica.
+ J. Phycol., 31 : 272-282.

1995

Bioi.;Ecol.
Living

A5200

GIRAUDEAU,J. &BAILEY,G.W.
Spatial dynamics of coccolithophore communities during an upwelling event in theSouthern Benguela system.
+Cont. ShelfRes., 15(14): 1825-1852.

1995

Ecoi.;Syst.
LivingAtlantic S.

A520 1HA YS, G.C., WARNER, A.J., JOHN,A.W.G., HARBOU~ D.S., & HOLLIGAN, P.M.
Coccolithophores and the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey.
• J. Mar. Bioi. Assn., 75: 503-506.

1995

Ecol.
LivingAtlantic N.

A5202

HECK, S.E. van
The ICBN: things you need to know- 12.
+ J. Nannoplankton Res. , 17(1): 5-7.

1995

Syst.

A5203

LARSEN, H. C., SAUNDERS, A. D., CLIFT, P.D. & THE SHIPBOARD
SCIENTIFIC PARTY.
+ Proe. ODP, Init. Reports, v. 152 (East Greenland Margin: Sites 914-919). 977 pp.
[Nannofossils by W. Wei].

1994

Strat.
TERT.L-U.
Atlantic N.

A5204

MAl, H.
Uncoated, low-voltage SEM analysis of both. proximal and distal views of the same
coccoliths.
+ J. Nannoplankton Res., 17(1): 9-13.

1995

Tech.

==========================33==========================

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, I, 1996.

W. G. Siesser: Calcareous nannoplankton bibliography 26, p. 33 - 35.

------------------------------------A5205

MARTIN,R.E.
Cyclic and secular variation in microfossil biomineralization: clues to thebiogeochemical evolution of Phanerozoic oceans.
• Global Planet. Change, 11 : 1-23.

1995

Ecol.
1Rl-QUAT.

A5206

MILLER, KG. etaL
+ Proc. ODP, Init. Reports, v. lSOX (Island Beach and Atlantic City Sites, New Jersey
Coastal Plain). SS pp.
[Nannofossils by M.-P. Aubry and D. Bukry].

1994

Strat.
TERT .L-U.;
CRET.U.
America N.

AS207

MOUNTAIN, G.S., MILLER, KG., BLUM, P., & THE SHIPBOARD
SCIENTIFIC PARTY.
• Proc. ODP., Init. Reports, v. 150 (New Jersey Continental Slope and Rise: Sites 902-906).
885 pp.
[Nannofossils by M.-P. Aubry and S. Gartner].

1994

Strat.
TERT.L-U.
Atlantic N.

A5208

PRAHL, F.G.,PISIAS, N., SPARROW, M.A.,& SARIN, A.
Assessment of sea-surface temperature at 42 degrees N in the California Current overthe last 30,000 years.
+ Paleoceanography, 10(4): 763-773.

1995

Ecol.
LivingPacific N.

A5209

RAHMAN,A.
Reworked nannofossils in the North Atlantic Ocean and subpolar basins: implicationsfor Heinrich events and ocean circulation.
• Geology, 23(6): 487-490.

1995(Strat.) .
QUAT.
Atlantic N;
Europe W .

A5210

RIAUX-GOBIN, C., CHRETIENNOT-DINET, M.-J., & DESCOLAS-GROS, C.
Undamaged sedimented coccolithophorids in a deep environment (continental slope of the
Gulf of Lions).
+ Mar. Geol., 123: 239-252.

1995(Syst.);
Ecol.
Mediterr.

A5211

SAMTLEBEN, C., SCHAFER, P.,ANDRULEIT, H., BAUMANN,A., BAUMANN, K-H.,
KOHLY,A., MA TTHIESSEN,J., & SCHRODER-RITZRAU,A.
Plankton in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea: from living communities to sediment assemblages - an acualistic approach.
• Geol. Rundschau, 84: 108-136.

1995

Ecol.
LivingAtlantic N.

AS212

SAX.ENA, R.K & MISRA, C.M.
Campanian-Maastrichtian nannoplankton biostratigraphy of the Narsapur claystone
Formation, Krishna-Godvari Basin, India.
• J. Geol. Soc. India, 4S : 323-329.

1995

Str<tt.;(Syst.)
CRET.U.
Asia S.

A5213

SIESSER, W.G.
Paleoproductivity of the Indian Ocean during the Tertiary Period.
• Global Planet. Change, 11: 71-88.

1995

Ecol.
TERT.L-U.
Indian

A5214

SIESSER, W.G.
Bibliography and taxa of calcareous nannoplankton - 25.
• J. Nannoplankton Res., 17(1): 21-27.
·

1995

BibL

TEW,B.H.&MANCINI,E.A.

1995

Strat.
TERT.L.
America N .

A5215

An integrated stratigraphic method for paleogeographic reconstruction; examples from theJackson and Vicksburg Groups of the eastern Gulf Coastal Plain.
• Palaios, 10: 133-153.
A5216

THOMPSON, P.A.
Carbon isotope fractionation by Emiliania huxleyi.
+ Limnol. Oceanogr., 40(4): 673-679.

1995

Bioi.;Ecol.
I sot.
Living

A5217

THOMSEN, E.
Lower Cretaceous calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy in the Danish Central Trough.
• Dan. Geol. Undersogelse, Ser. A (20). 89 pp.

1987

Strat; Syst.
CRET.L.
Europe W.

A5218

THOMSEN, E. & JENSEN, T.F.
Aptian to Cenomanian stratigraphy in the Central Trough of the Danish North Sea sector.
• Geol. Jb., 113: 337-358.

1989

Strat.
CRET.L-U.
Europe W.

=========================34========================~

W G. Siesser: Calcareous nannoplankton bibliography 26, p. 33 - 35.

Journal of Nannoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

VANFOSSEN, M. C., CHANNELL, J.E.T., & BRALOWER, T.J.
Geomagnetic polarity stratigraphy and nannofossil biostratigraphy at the Krr boundary
section near Beloc, Haiti.
+Cretaceous Res., 16(1): 131-140.

1995

A5220

WEI, W.
How many impact-generated microspherule layers in the upper Eocene?
+ Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., 114: 101-110.

1995

Strat.
TERT.L.
Worldwide

A5221

WEI, W.
Revised age calibration points for the geomagnetic polarity time scale.
+ Geophys. Rec Lett., 22(8): 957-960.

1995(Strat.)TERTL-U.
Worldwide

A5222

WILLIAMS,J.R& BRALOWER, T.J.
Nannofossil assemblages, fine fraction stable isotopes, and the paleoceanographyof the Valanginian-Barremian (Early Cretaceous) North Sea Basin.
+ Paleoceanography, 10(4): 815-839.

1995

Strat;Ecol.
I sot.
Atlantic N;
Europe W.

A5219(Strat.)Kfi BDY

America C.

OTHER TITLES
A5223

FIRTH,J.
Ocean Drilling Program News.
+ J. Nannoplankton Res., 17(1 ): 4-5.

1995

Report

A5224

PAASCHE,E.
Book Review - Coccolithophores.
+ Limnol. Oceanogr., 40(3): 645-646.

1995

Review

A5225

VON SALIS, K
Book Review - Cocco1ithophores.
+ Mar. Geol., 123: 117-123.

1995

Review

A5226

YOUNG, J.R & BURNETT, J.A. on behalf of INA COMMITTEE.
News and Gossip.
+ J. Nannoplankton Res., 17(1): 2-4.

1995

Reports;
Reviews

TAXA
No new taxa were reported in these publications.

==========================35==========================

Journal_ _ _of Nannoplanlcton_ _ _ _ _Research,_ _ 18,_ 1,_ 1996.
_ _

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

INA membership changes, p. 36.

-------------INA MEMBERSHIP CHANGES
Compiled by Kevin Cooper

NEW MEMBERS

0 . Dmitrenko
Institute of Oceanology
Krasikova 23
Moscow 117218
RUSSIA
Hanno Kinkel
FB Geowissenschaften

University ofBremen
Postfach 330 440
D-28334 Bremen
GERMANY
Erik Thomsen

Dept. of Geology
CF Mollers Alle
Aarhus University
DK-8000Arhus C
DENMARK

Christianne Ellison
Dept. of Geological Sciences
University College London
Gower Street
London WCE BT
UK
Cecile Laporte - Galaa
CSTTOTAL
Route de Vesailles
Domaine de Beauplan
78470 St. Remy les Chevieuse
FRANCE
M. Ushakova
Institute of Oceanology
Krasikova 23
Moscow 117218
RUSSIA

Alexandra Zeltner
GPI Tiibingen
Sigwartstrasse 10
72076 Tiibingen
GERMANYCHANGES OF ADDRESS

HeinzHekel
120 Rainbow Street
Sandgate
4017 Queensland
AUSTRALIA

Michael Knappertsbusch
Naturhistorisches Museum
Augustinergasse 2
Postfach 400 1-BaselSWITZERLANDDavid Rutledge
1 Moss Road
Ballynahinch
County Down
N.lreland BT24 8EG
UK

Shell UKExplor.&Prod. UETLibracy-UETC/31
Shell Mex House
The Strand
London WC2R ODXUKSteve Starkie
Geochem Group Limited
Stratigraphy Division
Chester Street
Chester CH4 84D
UK
Patrizia Ziveri
via Manzoni 543100Parma
ITALY

Dawn Windley
59 Hungerford Road
Lower Weston
BathBAl
Avon
UK

Journal of N annoplankton Research, 18, 1, 1996.

N. Hine: INA accounts, p. 37.

INTERNATIONAL NANNOPLANKTON ASSOCIATION ACCOUNTSAPRIL 1994 to MARCH 1995
UKACCOUNTOPENING BALANCE

LS1ERLING
3060.19

INCOMESUBSCRIPTIONSSALE OF BACK ISSUESFLORENCE PROCEEDINGS

247.80204.001866.50

PRAGUE PROCEEDINGS (INA STOCK *1)

30.00

INIEREST

2.24
2350.54TOTAL
EXPENDITURE
16(2) [printing, postage, labour, bank charges]

1239.031151.00
500.00120.00111.0082.00
172.17

16(3) [printing, postage, labour, bank charges]
FLOAT* 2
OORSEf FIELD 1RIP*3
PRAGUE PROCEEDINGSUNPAID CHEQUE *4
POSTAGEPIKITOCOPYINGMISCELLANEOUS

65.69

34.58
3475.47TOTAL

USAACCOUNTUS$OPENING BALANCE

4646.03

INCOMESUBSCRIPTIONS

2150.53

TOTAL

2150.53

BAlANCE

Opening

IncomeExpenditure

Closing

L2350.54

L3475.47

L1935.26$6796.56

balance

UKaccount
US account

L3060.19$4646.03

balance$2150.53~*1 INA purchased sets of the Prague Proceedings. These are held in storage at University College London, c/o PaulBown.

* A float ofL500. 00 is held by Bohumil Hamr~mid in the Czech Republic where the Journal is now printed.
2* Arranged and authorised by Jeremy Young for payment of accommodation of three Czech Republic INA members
3

visiting the UK.
*4 This cheque was reissued and has now cleared through the account. It will be included in the 1995-96 accounts.

==========================37==========================